Israel is Guilty of Genocide in Gaza, Period — And It Requires an Unflinching Global Response

By Ben Emos | Saturday, November 23, 2024 | 8 min read

The loss of life in Gaza is staggering, comparable to erasing the entire populations of cities like Dimona (Israel), Køge (Denmark), or Holland (Michigan). Imagining such devastation in one’s own community brings into sharp focus the profound human suffering caused by this scale of destruction. When the targeting of a group results in such massive and systematic losses, it is often recognized under international law as genocide—a “crime of crimes” that demands the highest condemnation.

It is especially painful to consider that Israel, a country whose identity is profoundly shaped by the Holocaust and the survival of its descendants, now stands accused by human rights organizations, academics, and even the South African government of committing genocide in Gaza. These accusations, though not new, intensified after Israel’s military response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack. In the first weeks alone, this response caused over 5,000 deaths, sparking global outrage.

Over the past year, as the conflict continued, the call for evidence and accountability has grown louder. The question remains whether the world will confront this evidence and act to prevent further devastation, honoring the moral obligation to protect civilian lives and uphold international law.

As the devastation in Gaza deepens, with mounting deaths and unimaginable human suffering, some have unequivocally called the events a genocide. Yet many, including U.S. politicians and President Biden, have hesitated. In discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, they emphasized the high legal threshold required to classify acts as genocide under international law. Instead, terms like “crimes against humanity” or “war crimes” were often used—acknowledging the severity of the situation but stopping short of labeling it genocide. Meanwhile, the Palestinian death toll has now surpassed 40,000, and Gaza lies in ruins.

A September report by Refugees International highlighted evidence of a severe hunger crisis in Gaza, revealing famine-like conditions in northern areas during the first half of 2024, exacerbated by Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid. The situation has continued to deteriorate as South Africa brought its case accusing Israel of genocide to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The court has issued preliminary rulings urging Israel to allow greater humanitarian aid into Gaza and to cease operations in Rafah, but the fighting persists. Meanwhile, Israel has tightened its control over Palestinian territories in the West Bank, and the conflict has spread to Lebanon, with ceasefire talks repeatedly breaking down.

If the ICJ ultimately issues an official determination of genocide, it could have profound legal and political repercussions, potentially reshaping global responses to the crisis.

There are different ways to conceptualize genocide, but the ICJ is concerned only with its legal definition under the Genocide Convention, the international treaty criminalizing genocide that went into effect in 1951 and has been ratified by 153 countries, including Israel and its closest ally, the US.

The ICJ is the judicial branch of the United Nations and handles disputes between nations, typically involving resources and borders, though it has heard genocide cases in the past. It is distinct from the International Criminal Court, which prosecutes individuals accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity; that’s where arrest warrant for top Israeli and Hamas leaders have been sought.

A nation must bring genocide charges against another at the ICJ, providing evidence that the state itself (not just certain individuals) committed genocide. The accusing nation can also petition for provisional measures before a final ruling, including an interim court order to stop the violence, though the ICJ has no means of actually enforcing such rulings. For the court to have jurisdiction, both parties generally have to be signatories of the Genocide Convention. They will then make their case to the court through written briefs and oral arguments. A final ruling often takes years.

Under the Genocide Convention, genocide is “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

Those five physical acts can be measured, but it turns out “intent to destroy” is incredibly difficult to prove — and that has been the sticking point in the debate over whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, where the physical component of the crime is already demonstrably satisfied given the overwhelming number of Palestinian civilian casualties.

Intent has been central to nearly every other debate over genocide as well, and the high bar for proving intent has made international court findings of genocide rare.

Only three genocides have been officially recognized under the definition of the term in the Genocide Convention and led to trials in international criminal tribunals: one against Cham Muslim and ethnic Vietnamese people perpetrated by Khmer Rouge leaders in Cambodia in the 1970s, the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre in Bosnia. (The Holocaust occurred before the adoption of the 1948 Convention.)

UN investigations found the mass killings of the Yazidis by ISIS in Iraq and of the Rohingya in Myanmar constituted genocide. Though the US called the killing of the Masalit and other ethnic groups in the Sudanese region of Darfur between 2003 and 2005 “genocide,” a UN investigation ruled it was not. That may have caused the conflict to extend longer than it would have if a finding of genocide had been made, and gave the Sudanese government diplomatic cover to continue its campaign, despite widespread international condemnation.

Is Israel Guilty of Genocide?

Shortly after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Raz Segal, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University, described Israel’s response in Gaza as a “textbook case of genocide.” Writing in Jewish Currents, Segal expressed deep concern over the scale and intent of Israel’s military actions, which he argued met the legal and moral thresholds for genocide. Reflecting on the events nearly a year later, Segal affirmed his stance, citing “explicit and unashamed statements of intent to destroy” from Israeli officials. “The way intent is expressed here is absolutely unprecedented.”

The debate over whether Israel is committing genocide hinges on intent—a key element of the Genocide Convention’s definition—and has divided legal scholars and human rights experts. Statements from Israeli leaders, such as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s call for a “complete siege” on Gaza, labeling Hamas as “human animals,” and President Isaac Herzog’s remarks suggesting collective responsibility for Palestinians, have been widely cited as evidence of intent. These comments, paired with the devastating civilian toll, have fueled growing accusations of genocide.

The destruction in Gaza is staggering. Over the past year, thousands of Palestinians have been killed, and entire neighborhoods have been leveled. Humanitarian access has been repeatedly blocked, leading to famine-like conditions in parts of Gaza. A September 2024 report by Refugees International documented severe hunger and widespread destruction, painting a grim picture of life in the enclave. Scholars like Ernesto Verdeja of the University of Notre Dame pointed to Israel’s ground offensive in Rafah as a turning point. Rafah, once deemed a “safe zone,” became a target of relentless bombing, displacing thousands and cutting off vital aid. “This isn’t just about isolated incidents,” Verdeja said. “It’s indicative of a broader genocidal campaign.”

Still, not everyone agrees with the genocide label. Dov Waxman, a professor of political science and Israel studies at UCLA, acknowledges the brutality of Israel’s actions but argues they do not meet the strict legal definition of genocide. “I can understand why many regard those actions as genocidal,” he said, citing the extreme rhetoric of Israeli officials. However, Waxman maintains that the focus should be on addressing war crimes and crimes against humanity, which also demand accountability.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has begun hearing South Africa’s case against Israel, accusing it of genocide. The ICJ’s rulings often take years, but a finding of genocide would have profound legal and political implications. In the meantime, Israel continues its military operations, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens.

The question of whether Israel is guilty of genocide goes beyond a legal debate—it is a profound moral reckoning. Scholars like Raz Segal and Ernesto Verdeja argue that the evidence clearly shows a deliberate campaign to erase Palestinian life and identity. Others, like Dov Waxman, caution that the term genocide might overshadow the urgent need for accountability for war crimes. Yet, as the devastation in Gaza deepens, the imperative to protect civilian lives and uphold international law has never been more urgent. Regardless of the final legal determination, the staggering human toll demands a united and unwavering global response. This tragedy must be named for what it is: Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza, period—and it requires an unflinching global response.

Copyright 2024 FN, NewsRoom.