Is Israel committing Genocide in Gaza?

Context: There is a growing global consensus that Israel's conduct in Gaza meets the legal threshold for genocide. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued binding provisional measures, Israel’s non-compliance and continued assault raise doubts about the credibility of the rules-based international order. 

What is Genocide?

• Genocide was formally recognised as a crime under international law by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1946.
• In the aftermath of the horrors of the Holocaust (Germany), the UNGA unanimously adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in 1948. 
• The Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. 
• Genocide is considered the gravest of international crimes, and its prohibition constitutes a non-derogable peremptory norm(jus cogens) of international law. This means:
  • Prohibition of Genocide is absolute and universal- All countries must follow it. It cannot be ignored, suspended, or violated, even during war, emergency or with mutual agreement.
  • Any treaty or law that allows genocide is automatically invalid.
• Because of its status as a jus cogens norm, the duty to prevent and punish genocide gives rise to an erga omnes obligation (one owed to the international community as a whole). This means that all states, regardless of their direct involvement in a conflict, are legally bound to act against genocide wherever it occurs. 

Genocide Convention

• The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) emerged as an international treaty in the aftermath of World War II.
• The convention is the first-ever legal instrument to define and criminalise genocide as an international crime, and a binding treaty to prevent and punish such acts.
  • It was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. 
  • The Convention came into force in 1951, and has 153 state parties till 2024. India ratified the Genocide Convention in 1959.
• The Genocide Convention defines genocide through five acts:
  • Killing members of a group
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm
  • Deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring about physical destruction
  • Imposing measures to prevent births 
  • Forcibly transferring children to another group with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
• The definition of genocide given by the Convention has been adopted by various international and hybrid tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), and has been incorporated into the domestic laws of several countries.

Being an erga omnes obligation, South Africa, technically unrelated to the conflict in Gaza, claims standing to bring the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 

South Africa moves to ICJ against Israel: 

• South Africa moves to ICJ: In January 2024, South Africa initiated proceedings against Israel at the ICJ, alleging that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide.
• Interim order by ICJ: As of July 2025, ICJ has not yet ruled on the merits of the charge, however, it has issued a series of binding provisional measures, including repeated directives to ensure the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza. These interim orders reflect ICJ’s preliminary assessment that a plausible risk of genocide exists. 
• Humanitarian crisis in Gaza:
  • The Gaza Strip is experiencing a humanitarian crisis as a result of the Gaza war (since October 2023). 
  • Since March 2025, Israel has begun a complete blockade of all food and supplies going into Gaza. The blockage has been partially eased since May 2025 with limited aid distribution. This has resulted in significant shortages of fuel, food, medication, water, and essential medical supplies, with almost half a million people facing starvation. 
• Global consensus: As the humanitarian crisis worsens, a global consensus is emerging. Heads of state, senior United Nations officials, and leading international jurists are increasingly characterising Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocidal. 

Establishing Genocidal Intent is Difficult: 

Proving that genocide has occurred requires establishing two essential elements: the act itself and the intent behind it. 

• Establishing the Act: The first step is to establish the commitment of one or more of the five specific acts (specified in the Genocide Convention) against a protected group.
• Establishing the Intent behind the Act: 
  • Even more difficult is to establish the specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. This rare intent is what sets genocide apart from other mass atrocities. 
  • It is just not enough to show that the crimes were committed; rather the prosecutors must prove that the individuals as members of a group were targeted to annihilate the group’s capacity to survive or reconstitute itself as a political, social, or cultural entity. 

Scale of Destruction in Gaza: Evidence of Plausible Genocide: 

• In June 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israeli air strikes, shelling, burning and controlled demolitions had destroyed more than 90% of schools and university buildings across the Gaza Strip.
• Investigative Reports in Gaza points out systematic destruction not only of residential areas but also of critical infrastructure, including hospitals, universities, mosques, water systems, agricultural zones, and cultural heritage sites, as evidence of a policy aimed at making Palestinian life in Gaza unsustainable. 
• As per the local health authorities:
  • Over 58,000 people have been killed, including more than 17,000 children. 
  • Gaza now reportedly has the highest per capita number of amputee children in the world. 
  • As the starvation crisis deepens, civilians have reportedly been shot while waiting in queues for food and essential supplies.

The scale of destruction in Gaza lend further credence to these claims that Israel had crossed the threshold for committing genocide. Israel has maintained that its military campaign targets Hamas and not civilians, who it claims are affected only as collateral damage. 

Limitations of International Court of Justice

ICJ has held that intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the scale and nature of atrocities, patterns of conduct, and dehumanising rhetoric by state officials. 

1. Rigid standards to establish Genocide: 

However, the ICJ’s evidentiary standard for proving genocidal intent remains stringent and has come under increasing criticism. 

• In Croatia v. Serbia (2015), the ICJ held that genocidal intent could only be inferred from a pattern of conduct if “this is the only inference that could be reasonably drawn” from the acts in question.
  • This means that genocidal intent can only be accepted if it is the only possible explanation for the acts committed.
  • This rigid standard is widely criticised as it dismisses the possibility of genocide if there apperas to be any other plausible motive. Such a restrictive approach risks makes genocide near-impossible to prove. 
• ICJ needs a balanced approach that weighs all available evidence and discards inferences that are clearly unreasonable.
  • In other words, the presence of other conceivable motives should not automatically negate a finding of genocidal intent.
  • This view is consistent with international criminal jurisprudence. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) have recognised that genocidal intent can co-exist with other motives. 

2. Diminishing credibility of ICJ and rules-based international order: 

• Israel’s continued non-compliance with the ICJ’s binding provisional measures are increasingly being seen as a litmus test for the credibility of rules-based international order and undermines the credibility of ICJ.  
• Absence of decisive Multilateral Action: Within the UN framework, a strong case has emerged for suspending Israel from the UNGA, citing its persistent violations of the UN Charter and binding Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.
  • Article 6 of the UN Charter permits the expulsion of a member state by the Assembly on the UNSC’s recommendation if it consistently breaches the Charter’s core principles.
  • In 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution calling for economic sanctions on Israel, including an arms embargo. The US, in particular, has continued to shield Israel from accountability by repeatedly vetoing most UNSC resolutions. 

A final verdict by the ICJ on South Africa’s genocide allegations against Israel is likely to take years, as it must follow extensive hearings on jurisdiction and the merits of the case. 

Also Read: India's stance on Crime Against Humanity