I think everyone who watches the news or is on social media knows that Israel is accused of having committed genocide in Gaza after 7 October 2023. The horror of Oct 7th, the immense loss of Gazan life and property in the ensuing war, and the ongoing trauma are undeniable and demand moral seriousness.
That accusation of genocide comes up repeatedly in comments under my notes here on Substack. It comes up repeatedly on Facebook and X, either as standalone posts or in comments under a pro-Israeli post. It is made by those who are not experts in a subject either directly or adjacently related to genocide or the Middle East and sometimes it is made by prominent academics and commentators. For example, International Relations Expert and Political Scientist Prof John Mearshimer has forcefully argued the case. You can search for his many lengthy taped lectures or click here to see the concise version provided on Facebook.
There is even a South-Africa-initiated case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this very moment. Will the ICJ determine that what happened in Gaza was or was not a genocide?
The debate rages on mainstream and social media. People saying why it was a genocide; people saying why it was not. I am going to do something different here. I am going to compare the data we have about what happened in Gaza with the data we have about some of the officially recognized historical genocides.
Before that, I define genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention.
The UN Genocide Convention
Even extraordinarily high death tolls, population displacement, or property destruction are insufficient for an event to be labeled as a genocide. The specific intent to destroy a particular group, whether that is a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, must accompany at least one of the behavioural criteria of genocidal acts. War crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, horrific as they are, will not meet the legal threshold for genocide without intent.
The five behavioural criteria as found on the UN site are:
“Intent to destroy” is much more difficult to prove than calculating the harm committed. The UN understands that people may read intent into situations in which there has been much death, harm, and destruction, such as we can see in Gaza. Therefore, the UN website makes it clear that:
“Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.” [emphasis added because this is one of the arguments behind the genocide claim against Israel]
Therefore, genocide is not defined by the scale of destruction alone, but by whether acts such as killing, harm, or the creation of destructive conditions are carried out with the specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. This is what distinguishes genocide from even the most devastating wars or humanitarian crises.
Genocide and Demographic Impact
One common way to assess scale is by looking at the proportion of the targeted population murdered and the long-term demographic consequences. In Table 1, we compare the case of Gaza with some historically recognized genocides (the Rwandan, Namibian (Herero and Nama), the Holocaust, the Armenian, and Yazidi Genocides):
Note that, while the first four lost a huge proportion of their populations, the Yazidi Genocide was so-labelled even though it lost just 1-2%. Gaza, similarly, shows a low proportional death toll, albeit with massive internal displacement. Of course, numbers don’t capture what 1% or 3% actually mean to the people living it.
Timing and Legal Classification
Another angle of interest is how quickly reliable death tolls emerge and how long it takes for legal or scholarly consensus on genocide to be established. This is shown in Table 2.
There was relatively rapid recognition in the cases of Rwanda and the Yazidis in contrast with the decades it took for the Holocaust, Armenian and Namibian genocides. In Gaza, the recording of deaths is still on-going, with bodies being removed from the rubble even now. As sporadic violent incidents have continued despite the ceasefire, accurate international verification remains challenging. Legal classification in the case of Gaza will depend on how the evidence is ultimately interpreted under the Convention.
The Five Behavioural Genocide Convention Criteria
The Convention defines the acts that are relevant to a determination of genocide. As discussed earlier, their legal significance depends on whether they are linked to intent. Table 3 looks at what was actually done in Gaza and in the historical cases under examination, using the Convention’s categories.
Recognized genocides typically show multiple “Yes” acts with evidence of intent. Gaza has documented killings and harm caused during the intense urban warfare, but the other acts are alleged/debated or not clearly established. The allegations are prominent in the ICJ case and public debate, remaining subject to intense factual and legal dispute.
A Matter of Intent
The question of intent is difficult to resolve because it is inferred from patterns rather than stated directly. Courts look at what was done, what was said, and how those elements fit together.
Statements by Israeli officials, including calls for extensive destruction of infrastructure or proposals regarding population transfer, are also subject to differing interpretations. Some see them as evidence of genocidal intent; others as rhetoric accompanying a campaign to dismantle Hamas.
In Gaza, the same body of evidence can be read in more than one way. Food insecurity, destruction of infrastructure, and high civilian casualties may be interpreted as part of a deliberate effort to destroy a population. They may also be interpreted as the consequences of sustained urban warfare against an armed group embedded within that population.
The question is further complicated by contested evidence regarding humanitarian aid. Israel allowed substantial quantities of aid into Gaza, while reports also document diversion, interception, and breakdowns in distribution within the territory. These competing accounts make it difficult to attribute outcomes to a single cause, and attribution is central to any finding of intent.
This is why legal adjudication is required.
The International Court of Justice is currently considering the case. Israel submitted its counter-memorial in March 2026. A final ruling is likely years away. Separately, the ICC is investigating alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by all parties.
Conclusion
The accusation is serious and slogans on the media and in street demonstrations cannot replace serious adjudication.
That is what the ICJ is for, and it is what this comparison is for.
Postscript: A Note on Legal Precedent
A reader raised an important legal point in the comments. My article used Rwanda, Armenia, the Holocaust, Namibia, and the Yazidi genocide as comparative benchmarks. Those cases are historically instructive. Gregory Barton pointed out that the more directly relevant legal benchmark is the ICJ’s own jurisprudence, particularly Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) and Croatia v. Serbia (2015).
It’s worth noting that the ICJ and other international tribunals are separate bodies. Rwanda, for example, was adjudicated by the ICTR, not the ICJ. When Barton says the ICJ has found genocide only once, he means specifically the ICJ operating under the Genocide Convention.
The ICJ set a demanding standard for inferring genocidal intent.
This sharpens the argument in this article. When I wrote that the Gaza evidence can be read in more than one way, I was making an analytical observation. Barton’s citation suggests it is also legally significant. Under ICJ precedent, ambiguity of intent is not a close call. If a pattern of conduct can support more than one explanation, the charge faces a serious legal obstacle.
Readers interested in the legal argument can consult Barton’s full comment below.
If this work helped you see something more clearly, you can support it here:
[Ko-fi]
Substack’s payment system is not currently available for writers in Israel, so you cannot pledge for a paid subscription.
All investigations remain free and open to all readers.
This is complete nonsense. To use the word genocide to describe the Gaza war trivializes the term. That court is not legitimate; it is a circus influenced by Islamists and Communist China. The high civilian casualty figures from that war reflect Hamas's use of them as human shields, or as they put it, martyrs for Islam. This is a well-known tactic by Hamas to create the false impression that the IDF is in the wrong. In fact, the IDF abided by the terms of international law and warned civilians to leave the war zone before attacking, and in some cases, escorted them out even when Hamas was trying to force them to stay. Hamas does this as part of its propaganda war. I don't know who you are or how I became subscribed to your newsletter, but it's disappointing to see what is essentially Islamist propaganda being repeated and taken seriously. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, it would have. The only genocidal intent in that war is on the part of Iran and Hamas, which openly call for the annihilation of Israel's entire Jewish population.
A few comments:
1. "What Happens When You Compare It to Rwanda, Armenia, and the Holocaust"
Rwanda, Armenia and the Holocaust are interesting historical examples. But there has been only incident of genocide, Srebrenica, found by the ICJ. Bosnia v. Serbia 2007 is the leading authority, followed by Croatia v Serbia 2015.
Genocide is a crime created by treaty. Article 11 of the relevant treaty appoints the International Court as the authority to interpret the treaty. The facts of those cases are the most important facts for determining the elements of the crime. Rwanda, Armenia and the Holocaust are instructive, but Bosnia v Serbia is authoritative. Srebrenica should be the standard reference for determining the facts of genocide.
2. "The accusation is serious. It requires careful scrutiny."
The crime is serious. The accusation is preposterous, given the high evidentiary standard ruled by the ICJ which could not be met in Gaza unless military operations had ceased, all hostages recovered, and killings on a vast scale occurred, the intent of which was not to defeat the enemy or release hostages, but only to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza.
3. So-called experts alleging Genocide in Gaza, like Mearshimer, are charlatans. Genocide is a crime, which is a matter of law; not political science or international relations. Opinions that do not deal with the basic legal issues, most important of which is specific intent, are activist claptrap and should not be considered authoritative.
4. Will the ICJ determine that what happened in Gaza was or was not a genocide?
If they follow their own precedent they will not find genocide (unless some evidence emerges of mass executions of a substantial part of the group "Palestinians in Gaza" which the court defined as the protected group. That would require execution of tens if not hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians in Gaza" after military operations had ceased.)
If the ICJ abandon their own precedent, then anything could happen. We have seen this in recent ICJ Opinions, which departed from precedent in the Congo v. Uganda case and as far back as the Wall Opinion, which departed from the Western Sahara precedent.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/icj-abandons-precedent-reason-and?r=izczy
Anything is possible with a 'get-Israel' activist court.
5. Specific intent. This is the crux of the matter. A crime has two components: actus reus - the act and mens rea - the intent. It is easy to find the actus reus. Killing members of a protected protected group would fall within the definition of the acts described in Article 2 of the Convention. In Croatia v. Serbia there were numerous findings of actus reus of genocide, but no mens rea was found.
Specific intent is clearly defined in para 373 of Bosnia v. Serbia. This is the leading authority.
"The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in
part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances ... and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent."
There you have it. If a pattern of conduct - not politicians statements - could point to an intent other than destruction of the protected group, the charge fails, as it did in Croatia v. Serbia in seventeen charges and Bosnia v Serbia in eleven of the twelve charges.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/is-israel-committing-genocide-in?r=izczy
6. Scale alone does not indicate genocide.
True and an important point. This is a common misconception propagated by so-called experts that genocide can be inferred from the scale of death and destruction. The court rejected this claim in the first sentence of para 373 of Bosnia v. Serbia.
"Turning now to the Applicant’s contention that the very pattern
of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy
period, focused on Bosnian Muslims and also Croats, demonstrates the
necessary intent, the Court cannot agree with such a broad proposition."
Death and destruction alone do not imply genocidal intent.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/totality-of-evidence-fallacy-another?r=izczy
7. Your table omits reference to the Srebrenica massacre, which is the genocide on which the current law relies and in which 8,000 men and boys, or one fifth of the Bosnian Muslim male population, were executed for no other possible intent than destruction of the protected group. Srebrenica is the standard for assessing genocide according to the law.
8. Statements made by Israeli officials are not conduct from which genocidal intent can be inferred. This is another misconception propagated by the charlatan 'experts'.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/no-genocidal-intent-cannot-be-inferred?r=izczy
9. "In Gaza, the same body of evidence can be read in more than one way."
If a 'body of evidence' or a 'pattern of conduct' does not point to one intent and only one intent, then genocidal intent is irrebuttably presumed not to exist. If the same body of evidence "can be read in more than one way" it does not point to 'only one intent'. The ambiguity of intent precludes an inference of genocidal intent. So any 'pattern of conduct' of the IDF in Gaza which could point to the intent of defeating the enemy, Hamas, or recovering hostages, would preclude a finding of genocide - if the court acts in good faith and applies its own precedent from Bosnia v. Serbia 2007. It's that simple.
I put a summary of the legal requirements for genocide at the beginning of this article.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/is-israel-committing-genocide-in-72d?r=izczy
It's a good starting point on the law.