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

Both sidesSays it is contested

This is a complex legal question with active international court cases — I'll examine the criteria for genocide and the range of expert views on Gaza.

Israel's military actions in Gaza since October 7, 2023 have been widely described as genocide by some courts, commissions, human rights organizations and scholars, and strongly denied by Israel and other scholars and governments. There is no final binding judicial ruling that they constitute genocide, and the question remains contested as a matter of international law.

1. Legal definition of genocide

Genocide is defined as a crime under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article II defines genocide as:

> any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> - Killing members of the group
> - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
> - Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
> - Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
> - Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The definition contains two main elements:

1.A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"

2.A physical element: one of the five acts listed above

The intent - often called dolus specialis - is the most difficult element to determine. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. Case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition does not include that element.

The popular understanding of genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.

2. Allegation before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed an application with the ICJ, accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. Specifically, South Africa argues that acts and omissions by Israel are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel has vehemently rejected the accusation as "baseless" and denies the allegations, stating its actions are self-defense measures against Hamas.

What the ICJ has and has not decided:

•On January 26, 2024, the ICJ ordered Israel to take provisional measures including ceasing indiscriminate attacks and allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza.

•For the ICJ to issue such measures, it is required to find that the rights being protected are "at least plausible" and at risk of irreparable harm. The ICJ found that the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide was plausible and that those rights faced a real and imminent risk of irreparable harm.

•The January 2024 order was a ruling on provisional measures only, not a final determination of genocide. The Court expressly said its orders do not prejudge whether genocide has been or is being committed, and as of 2026 the Court has ordered binding emergency measures but has made no final ruling on whether genocide has occurred.

Former ICJ President Joan Donoghue clarified that the ruling determined Palestinians have a "plausible right" to be protected, not that Israel had plausibly committed genocide, while other commentators interpret the plausibility finding differently.

In 2024 the Court issued three orders of provisional measures requiring Israel to take steps to protect rights asserted under the Convention, prevent acts covered by it and facilitate humanitarian assistance. However, the Court has not ruled that Israel committed genocide.

Final ruling on the merits is still pending and is expected to take years. As one summary notes: The question is currently being actively litigated before the ICJ, debated by legal scholars, human rights organizations, and governments, and it remains unresolved as a matter of international law.

3. Bodies and experts that have concluded it is genocide

Several independent investigations and NGOs have concluded that the threshold for genocide has been met:

•UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel: In a report of 16 September 2025, the Commission concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. It found that Israeli authorities and security forces had committed four of the five acts defined as genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention, including killings, serious bodily or mental harm, conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and measures to prevent births. The Commission said genocidal intent was the "only reasonable inference" from patterns of conduct and public statements. A follow-up report in October 2025 said genocidal acts had continued despite the US-brokered ceasefire.

The Commission is an investigative body established by the UN Human Rights Council; its findings carry political weight but carry no legal authority as a court judgment, and a commission's investigative conclusion is distinct from a final judgment by an international court.

•Amnesty International: In December 2024, Amnesty published a 296-page report titled 'You Feel Like You Are Subhuman' declaring that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Secretary-General Agnès Callamard stated the conclusion was unequivocal — "the state of Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide". The report cited deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, as prohibited under Article II(c).

•Human Rights Watch: In December 2024, Human Rights Watch highlighted how Israeli authorities had deliberately obstructed Palestinians' access to water and other conditions of life, publishing a report titled "Israel's Crime of Extermination, Acts of Genocide in Gaza".

•Genocide scholars: A review of 25 recent articles in the Journal of Genocide Research found that all eight academics from the field of genocide studies see genocide or at least genocidal violence in Gaza. The International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution in 2025, supported by 86 percent of those who voted, that Israel's conduct constitutes genocide. Multiple sources note that numerous scholars and legal experts have accused Israel of committing genocide since late 2023, including within genocide studies, Holocaust studies and international law.

4. Positions that it does not constitute genocide

•Israel's position: Israel has rejected the allegations of genocide and war crimes, calling the UN Commission report biased and part of a "misinformation campaign to demonize the state of Israel and portray its very existence as criminal", and a "propaganda document detached from reality, aimed at undermining Israel's right to self-defense". It has previously denied claims of genocide, insisted it only launches attacks in response to Hamas ceasefire breaches, and says it does all it can to avoid civilian casualties.

•Governments: Israel and its allies strongly reject these claims. The U.S. and some European nations have continued to support Israel despite calls for accountability, and deny genocide allegations.

•Other legal scholars and commentators: Five quick facts explaining why calling Israel's actions in Gaza "genocide" is wrong, as presented by the American Jewish Committee, include:

•Genocide requires intent to destroy a people. Israel's objective is to dismantle Hamas and remove the terrorist threat — not to destroy the Palestinian people.

•No international court has ruled that Israel committed genocide. The ICJ is still considering South Africa's case and has not yet made a final decision.

Other analyses argue the genocide allegation fails the intent test, and that death totals and destruction do not establish specific intent, and that while Israel's conduct may raise concerns about proportionality and humanitarian law, it does not meet the stringent legal requirements for genocide.

Genocide under the Convention requires not just mass civilian death, but a demonstrable intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part, as such.

5. Why the question is disputed

The core of the disagreement is over intent and interpretation of evidence:

•Those finding genocide point to mass killing, serious bodily and mental harm, siege tactics causing starvation, destruction of health and education systems, and statements by Israeli officials that they interpret as evidence of genocidal intent.

•Those disputing genocide argue that civilian deaths and humanitarian suffering, while severe, do not by themselves demonstrate plausible genocidal intent, and that Israel's stated military aim, warnings to civilians, and aid facilitation efforts point to a different intent — war against Hamas, not destruction of Palestinians as a group.

As summarized by one overview: Multiple leading human-rights organizations, Israeli and international NGOs, the UN human rights apparatus and an association of genocide scholars have concluded that Israel's conduct meets the legal thresholds of genocide or genocidal acts; other influential institutions and commentators strongly dispute that finding and stress legal complexities and intent requirements.

Citations (1)

1archive.orgNonprofits and think tanks
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
Backs: “Legal definition of genocide. Genocide is defined as a crime under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II defines genocide as:”
background, official document, neutral. Claim: Genocide is defined as a crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention, with Article II listing the acts and the intent to destroy a group.