International Legal Experts' Opinions: Is Israel Com­mit­ting Geno­cide in the Gaza Strip?

Final Judgment: "Based on information in the public domain as of August 2025, Israel’s actions in relation to Gaza since 7 October 2023 strongly suggest that the situation has come to fit within the definition of genocide under Article II of the 1948 Convention."

Reasons: "The combination of relevant statements by Israeli officials over many months (and a failure by Israel to address apparent cases of incitement to genocide), Israel’s strategy and tactics in the military campaign ostensibly directed against Hamas (including actions that appear to violate core tenets of IHL), and Israel’s obstruction of humanitarian aid and assistance and failure to  alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza provide a basis on which to assess Israel’s policy towards Gaza. 

As of August 2025, there is a strong case that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from this evidence (including the use of starvation as a weapon of war) is a state policy directed at the physical destruction of the Palestinian population of Gaza, even if this would not necessarily have been the only reasonable conclusion that one could have been drawn at earlier points in the conflict. Moreover, while the burden of proof in international law normally lies with those who allege wrongdoing, we are now in a situation where, in my view, Israel bears the burden to explain convincingly how its actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide. 

Finally, and notwithstanding my comments here, the popular fixation on whether the situation in Gaza is a genocide or not can also function as an unhelpful distraction. When a situation raises serious and credible concerns about genocide – as Gaza does – it is almost inevitably a situation that already constitutes a humanitarian crisis and very likely encompasses other international crimes (i.e., war crimes, crimes against humanity) and other grave violations. At this point, the situation in Gaza appears to meet the very high legal standard of genocide. But even if this were not the case, it is a situation of inexcusable human suffering that already demands an urgent and uncompromising response, genocide or not.”  

Final Judgment: "Yes, Israel is committing Genocide in Gaza."

Reasons: While it is relatively straightforward to attribute the acts of individual perpetrators —especially state officials — to the state, I find it more problematic to speak with confidence about ‘state intent’. In my view, a state commits genocide when the genocidal intent of its leadership is embedded in its policies. Nevertheless, I believe there are substantial grounds to conclude that at least some Israeli officials and military personnel are committing acts with genocidal intent, which would imply that the State of Israel bears responsibility. Key among these are actions aimed at the destruction of the conditions of life of Palestinians in Gaza, such as the targeting of healthcare and education systems – often referred to as 'scholasticide'. In international jurisprudence, such efforts to prevent the re-establishment of a community are strong indicators of genocidal intent.

While my initial assessment was hesitant regarding the finding of genocide, it has shifted in light of the ongoing and systematic nature of both the Israeli acts and the rhetoric, committed with impunity. The space for alternative inferences – those that exclude genocide – is shrinking.

Final Judgment: "In Gaza, Israel is perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity of a gravity equivalent to genocide. These include starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, inhumane acts, and extermination. There is, at minimum, a serious risk that this conduct also entails genocide, meaning that third-party states have an urgent obligation to employ all reasonably available means to prevent it, including by cutting off military and dual-use supplies. In the longer term, although uncertain, the probability is growing that the ICJ will reach a final determination of genocide in the case South Africa brought against Israel.

Reasons: Israel has inflicted destructive conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza through depriving them of objects indispensable to survival (particularly food, safe water, medical care and essentials, and shelter). That pattern of conduct entails war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

Whether the ICJ will conclude that it also constitutes genocide will hinge exclusively on its assessment of intent. For genocidal intent to be inferred from a pattern of conduct, it must be the only reasonable inference. That is a high threshold, but it does not mean that genocidal intent must be the only intent associated with the conduct. Nor is such an inference limited to situations in which the conduct is pursued in the most efficiently destructive manner available. In Gaza, relevant patterns of conduct at scale and over a prolonged period are supplemented by dehumanizing statements from Israeli officials, some of whom influence state policy. These discernible facts are damning. 

Whether or not the ICJ ultimately deems them to be “fully conclusive” of genocidal intent, the urgent point today is they entail, at a minimum, a “serious risk” of genocide. That risk implicates third-party states’ duty to employ all reasonably available means to prevent the wrongful conduct.

Final Judgment: "There is a serious risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Israel is visibly inflicting conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza that are calculated to bring about their displacement and very plausibly also their (partial) destruction as a group."

Reasons: "In my assessment I am relying on the ICJ’s understanding of genocidal intent. To establish that Israel is responsible for committing genocide in Gaza, the ICJ must find that (partial or total) destruction of Palestinians as a group per se is one purpose of prohibited acts Israel is committing in Gaza. Other purposes may guide these prohibited acts, but they must only be explicable if group destruction is one purpose.

Right now, the legally most relevant question is not what the ICJ will decide, but whether there is a serious risk of genocide and the answer to that question has been “yes” for many months. States that continue to materially support Israel fail to fulfil their duty to prevent genocide. 

Whether the ICJ will, years from now, find that Israel is responsible for committing genocide in Gaza is harder to answer. Why? Imagine a military campaign that includes persecution, forced displacement, and extermination. These are crimes against humanity. Legally they do not add up to genocide, but the difference between this criminal campaign and a genocide is not necessarily visible to the naked eye. Critically, there is no moral difference between this criminal campaign and a genocide. 

The singular focus on the question whether Israel is legally committing genocide is morally a mistake with disastrous political consequences. Crimes against humanity like forced displacement and the risk of genocide are demonstrable right now. That has clear legal implications right now."

Final Judgment: "It depends"

Reasons: The assessment might vary depending on whether we assess individual responsibility or state responsibility. Having in mind statements of some politicians who treated the whole Gaza population as the target, I would not exclude genocidal intent, but I would be very cautious to assign this intent to all Israeli people involved in the operation. In the case of state responsibility, it is much harder to identify genocidal aims". 

Recently we hear about forcible relocation which should be classified as crime against humanity and not as genocide. However, the total ban (even temporary) for humanitarian assistance is of particular concern, as the treatment of the whole population as an enemy and depriving the civilian population of any help could be treated as a kind of proof of genocidal purposes.

Final judgment: "Yes, I believe that Israel's conduct in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. It appears specifically intended to destroy a substantial part of the Palestinian group, most likely as a means to achieve further political and military goals including forcible displacement."

Reasons: “The specific intent to destroy a substantial part of the group is the only inference that can reasonably be drawn from the broad pattern of indiscriminate bombardment and willful killing combined with widespread and systematic starvation, displacement, and destruction of homes, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure, persisting throughout the war despite international condemnation. This pattern cannot be fully explained by mere indifference to civilian suffering, or as a byproduct of military action aimed at defeating Hamas. This inference is corroborated by genocidal statements from Israeli leaders, soldiers, and public figures. The totality of the available evidence leaves me fully convinced.

While there was evidence of genocidal intent from the beginning, I was initially focused on Israel's serious violations of international humanitarian law. South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice persuaded me that there was a real and imminent risk that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. My level of certainty continued to rise in response to Israel's subsequent conduct, including its blatant violations of ICJ orders. By the time I read Amnesty International's December 2024 report I was fully persuaded that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference based on the totality of the evidence."

Final Judgment: "Not sufficient evidence publicly available to attain such conclusion"

Reasons: "Undoubtedly, some statements by prominent Israel government officials raise the question of whether such officials have committed crimes of incitement to genocide. Also, the horrifying high number of casualties amongst the Gazan population, and the escalating catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza, obviously raise the question of whether the Israel Defence Forces are generally conducting themselves in accordance with the laws of war. Nonetheless, there is not sufficient evidence publicly available to support the claim that the operations conducted by the Israel Defence Forces in, and around, Gaza are the result of a ‘specific intent’ of the persons who ultimately lead those forces ‘to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such’."

Final Judgment: Yes. As of February 2025, the only reasonable inference from the cumulative evidence is that Israel’s conduct in Gaza constitutes genocide, understood as the intentional destruction of a protected group in whole or in part.

Reasons: While earlier phases of the war exhibited extreme and unlawful violence, the threshold of genocidal intent under international law—established by the ICJ and criminal tribunals—was not conclusively met until February 2025. At that point, Israel’s sustained obstruction of humanitarian aid, the systematic targeting of life-sustaining infrastructure, and especially high-level official statements advocating for the removal or erasure of the Palestinian population in Gaza coalesced into a coherent policy, articulated inter alia by Netanyahu and Trump in the White House. 

This conduct no longer served any plausible military objective. Rather, it reflected a plan to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza as such. The following assault on humanitarian access, culminating in the horrendous and planned failure of the aid distribution system, was the turning point. It marked a shift from indiscriminate or disproportionate warfare to an intentional campaign against the survival of the group.

Final judgment: “There are reasonable indications that certain actions taken by Israel in Gaza could meet the criteria for the crime of genocide.”

Reasons: "Specifically, I am referring to the massive bombings, forced displacement, systematic destruction of essential civilian infrastructure, such as water supply networks and hospitals, and the humanitarian blockade that has intentionally prevented the entry of food, medicine, and fuel. The period between December 2023 and March 2024 represents a critical turning point. This is particularly evident due to the intensification of the siege on Gaza, the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid access despite the provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024, and the continued systematic bombing of densely populated civilian areas. The conscious and ongoing repetition of this behavior suggests a deliberate intention to partially eliminate the Palestinian group in Gaza."

Final judgment: "Israel’s conduct in and in relation to Gaza meet the requirements of genocide."

Reasons: "The genocidal intent can be established on three bases. 

First, statements made by Israeli officials, whose conduct is attributable to Israel, disclose the intent to physically or biologically destroy the Palestinians in Gaza. The indication in some of these statements of a parallel intent to avoid harming non-Hamas members does not negate genocidal intent – the genocidaires in Srebrenica intentionally spared women, girls and non-military age young boys and elderly men. These statements evince the intent to adopt extremely severe measures (including starvation, wholesale destruction and constant forcible displacement in a sealed, indiscriminately bombed territory) that will necessarily result in the Gazans’ ‘slow death’.

Second, Israel’s State policy, culminating in or influenced by the ‘Generals’ Plan’ presented to the Israeli Parliament in October 2024, to target Gazans who remain in ‘closed military zones’ when they are prevented by road closures, military operations and other hazards from leaving, also indicates genocidal intent. 

Third, the killings and infliction of extreme group conditions of life in Gaza constitute a pattern of conduct that could only point to a genocidal intent. The legal standard, “only reasonable inference”, means that the inference of a genocidal intent is inescapable, not that genocide is the sole intent to be inferred i.e. ‘only’ is used not in its numerical sense, but in its emphatic sense of certainty. Many geo-politico-economic intents have been inferred in other genocides, precluding the logic that a genocide can only occur if solely motivated by a pure desire to destroy a group."

Final Judgment: "Prima facie, there is strong evidence to affirm a genocidal intent to destroy on the part of key figures within the Israeli government."

Reasons: Primarily, members of the war cabinet would be considered responsible. A key element for attributing genocidal intent, in my view, must be the near-total destruction of vital infrastructure. This includes the blockade or severe restrictions on food and other essential goods and materials necessary for the survival of the Palestinian civilian population—such as medicines, medical equipment, and the operation of desalination plants.

When assessing the subjective element of the crime, the broader unrestricted and often indiscriminate conduct of hostilities, as well as potential war crimes (for example, those included in the ICC warrants of arrest against Netanyahu and Galant), should also be taken into account. The genocidal intent may also emerge over the course of the conflict’s development and its objectives. It is not limited solely to the stated goal but also encompasses the means employed to achieve it. A military campaign aimed at forced displacement as part of an 'ethnic cleansing' could, under certain circumstances, take on a genocidal character."