Why I Struggle to Accept the Claim of Genocide Against Israel

Why Israel’s actions, however tragic in their consequences, do not meet the legal or moral definition of genocide.

Accusations of genocide are among the gravest charges that can be made against a nation. To level such a claim is to place a country alongside the Holocaust, Rwanda, or Srebrenica, where entire peoples were deliberately targeted for extermination. That is why I find it difficult to accept the charge of genocide against Israel. Not because the suffering in Gaza is not real, nor because civilian deaths are not tragic, but because the situation is far more complex and involves multiple factors that make the word genocide misleading. Like the International Court of Justice, I acknowledge that some arguments require investigation, but I also see how loosely the term is being used in public discourse, and how that overuse risks stripping the word of its true meaning.

The first point is the ICJ itself. Despite endless headlines and protest slogans claiming Israel is guilty of genocide, the ICJ has not declared this to be the case. Instead, it has issued provisional measures, a standard step in complex cases, ordering Israel to take actions to ensure humanitarian aid access and to avoid anything that could be interpreted as genocidal conduct. These are temporary precautions, not a final ruling. If the evidence were truly overwhelming, the Court could have declared outright that Israel is committing genocide. It has not done so. As history shows in Bosnia v Serbia, such cases take years, even decades, before final judgments are reached. That fact alone should temper the premature certainty displayed by activists who shout “genocide” in the streets as though it were an established legal truth.

The second point is intent, which is central to the definition of genocide. Genocide is not simply about large numbers of people dying. Civilian casualties occur in many wars, and tragic though they are, they do not automatically mean genocide is taking place. Genocide requires proof of a deliberate intent to exterminate a group because of who they are. That intent is not visible in Israel’s actions. On the contrary, Israel has demonstrated intent that is inconsistent with genocide. Before October 7, thousands of Gazans were issued work permits to enter Israel for employment opportunities. If Israel’s aim was to destroy Gazans as a people, why allow them to work, earn livelihoods, and integrate economically? In 2005, Israel withdrew all settlers and its entire military presence from Gaza in an effort to allow Palestinians self-governance. For years, Israel has permitted money to flow into Gaza, as well as goods and humanitarian supplies, even though much of it was diverted by Hamas. A state bent on extermination would not create conditions for its enemy population to work, to trade, or to self-govern.

By contrast, Hamas has made its intent explicit. Its charter openly calls for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Its political and military leaders repeatedly state that their goal is not coexistence but elimination. Hamas does not hide its intent, and it is Hamas, not Israel, that fits the genocidal definition.

This difference is also reflected in the treatment of children. Israel issues warnings before strikes; through leaflets, phone calls, text messages, and “roof knocks” to alert civilians to evacuate. No other military in modern warfare has consistently employed such measures. At the same time, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have deliberately built a culture of martyrdom. 

In schools, children are taught that the highest honour is to die for Allah. In summer camps, run directly by Hamas and PIJ, children wear caps with slogans such as “Death to Infidels,” chant about killing Jews, and train with weapons. Martyrdom is presented not as a tragedy but as the greatest possible reward. When Israel issues evacuation warnings, children and families often do not leave because they have been indoctrinated to stay. Civilians are not merely caught in crossfire; they are strategically positioned as human shields by Hamas, which knows that their deaths will fuel outrage abroad.

This is why there are videos of Gazans themselves expressing anger not at Israel but at Hamas. There are grieving parents who, in moments of raw honesty, have blamed Hamas for the loss of their children, saying Hamas has sacrificed them for its own cause. These voices are rarely amplified in Western media because they cut against the narrative of Israel as the sole aggressor. But they matter deeply, because they show that even some Palestinians recognise how Hamas manipulates their suffering for propaganda purposes.

Propaganda plays a major role in this debate, particularly through casualty figures. The world tends to accept statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry at face value. Yet the Health Ministry is not an independent institution; it is run by Hamas. Every figure it releases is curated by an organisation that has an interest in maximising outrage against Israel. This does not mean all the numbers are false, but it means they cannot be taken as objective or neutral. Moreover, history shows repeated examples of staged content, sometimes called “Pallywood”, in which funerals have been faked, corpses reused, and staged injuries filmed for the cameras. This has been exposed multiple times over the years. That history should at least caution us against blind acceptance of every statistic and video.

South Africa’s motives also cannot be ignored. As the state that filed the genocide case, it portrays itself as a moral voice, drawing on its history of apartheid. But the ruling ANC has deep political and financial ties to Hamas and its backers. South Africa has hosted Hamas officials, accepted Qatari investments, and used the case as a way of positioning itself as a leader of the “Global South” against the West. This does not mean its arguments should be dismissed entirely, but it does mean its motives are not purely humanitarian. When a government that ignored Sudan’s genocide, that welcomed Omar al-Bashir despite an international arrest warrant, suddenly becomes fixated on Israel, questions about double standards must be asked.

Intent and proportionality matter. If Israel truly intended genocide, Gaza would no longer exist. Israel possesses overwhelming firepower. It could have flattened the territory entirely within days. Instead, it conducts targeted strikes, often at great risk to its own soldiers, while still allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza. Trucks continue to cross even while rockets are fired from the Strip. This is not the behaviour of a state bent on extermination, but of one seeking to eliminate a terror infrastructure that uses civilians as shields.

The tragic reality is that war produces suffering. Civilians die. Homes are destroyed. Families are displaced. But suffering alone does not equal genocide. Otherwise, every war in modern history could be classified as genocide. By that standard, Britain in Dresden, America in Vietnam, NATO in Serbia, and Russia in Chechnya would all be genocidal states. The word would lose all meaning. What makes genocide distinct is deliberate intent to annihilate a people. That intent is evident in Hamas’s charter and actions, but not in Israel’s.

This overuse of the term is damaging. By casually applying genocide to Israel, activists weaken the charge when it genuinely applies. It diminishes the memory of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Srebrenica, where extermination was systematic, explicit, and undeniable. It turns a legal term into a political slogan. That does not bring justice to Palestinians; it only clouds the truth.

Israel’s operations are not without error. Civilian casualties are real, and some military decisions are rightly subject to scrutiny. But mistakes are not genocide. Collateral damage, however tragic, is not the same as deliberate extermination. Israel’s intent has consistently been to protect its population from terror attacks while dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities.

The ICJ is right to investigate, because the seriousness of the charge demands examination. But investigation is not guilt. The activists who shout “genocide” today may have to reckon with a very different reality if, in the years ahead, the Court concludes that Israel’s actions do not meet the legal definition. If that happens, will those who slandered Israel with the most severe accusation in international law be willing to admit they were wrong? Or will they move the goalposts again?

In the end, the truth is uncomfortable but pretty clear. I do not think Israel is committing genocide. Hamas is committing human sacrifice. Hamas is the side deliberately putting children in harm’s way, deliberately sacrificing civilians to achieve political ends, deliberately manufacturing suffering to sway world opinion. Israel is guilty of fighting a brutal and ugly war, but not of genocide. To claim otherwise is to confuse tragedy with intent, and propaganda with truth.

That is why I struggle to accept the word genocide in this context. Not because I deny the pain of Gaza’s people, but because truth matters. Justice demands accuracy, not slogans. And accuracy shows that the charge of genocide against Israel does not stand.