What if Israel Isn’t Committing Genocide in Gaza? - Newsweek

Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza?

It is an essential question—but not the only one.

The controversy over Macklemore’s removal from Ed Sheeran’s U.S. tour shows why. Macklemore was dropped by the tour promoter after declaring “Free Palestine” on stage, while Sheeran faced criticism for not publicly defending him and for taking a neutral position on the issue. Every word and omission became a test of allegiance, showing how easily emotion can eclipse analysis and blur the lines between moral judgment, political loyalty and legal classification.

Lawyers, scholars and governments have spent nearly three years arguing over whether Israel’s conduct satisfies the legal definition of genocide. The argument matters. Genocide has a precise legal meaning, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not yet decided the merits of South Africa's case against Israel.

But while we argue over the word, Palestinians keep dying.

A population-representative study in The Lancet Global Health estimated that approximately 75,200 Palestinians were killed violently in Gaza between October 7, 2023, and January 5, 2025—about one in every 29 people. Nearly 22,800 were children. Researchers estimated another 8,540 excess deaths from nonviolent causes. And the study’s count ended in January 2025.

Even those numbers capture only part of the devastation. By October 2025, nearly 372,000 housing units—more than three-quarters of Gaza’s housing stock—had been damaged or destroyed. The same was true of more than 97 percent of its schools and 95 percent of its higher education facilities. Its health system has been shattered, entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble and much of its population left with no intact home—or functioning education system—to return to.

So perhaps another question belongs alongside the legal one: What if it isn't genocide?

Genocide is not a synonym for mass killing. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, specified acts must be committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group as such. Israel denies that intent, maintaining that it is fighting Hamas after the atrocities of October 7, not seeking to destroy Palestinians as a people. Skeptics also cite Hamas’ conduct in civilian areas, alleged use of human shields, the hostages and the realities of urban warfare. Their central legal point is serious. Even an appalling civilian death toll does not, by itself, establish genocidal intent.

But it is equally mistaken to dismiss genocide as a fringe characterization advanced only by activists.

Prominent scholars of genocide, the Holocaust and international law—including Omer Bartov, Raz Segal, Amos Goldberg, William Schabas and Martin Shaw—have concluded, or argued there is compelling evidence, that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Major organizations have reached similar conclusions. Amnesty International, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel have called Israel’s conduct genocide. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention—named after the Polish-Jewish lawyer who coined the word “genocide”—has characterized Israel’s assault as genocide since December 2023. Human Rights Watch later found that Israel’s deliberate deprivation of water amounted to extermination and “acts of genocide.” The International Association of Genocide Scholars adopted a resolution reaching that conclusion, although its process drew criticism. In September 2025, the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry likewise concluded that Israel had committed genocide.

None of this decides the case before the ICJ. Scholars still disagree over whether the evidence establishes genocidal intent. But the claim plainly has a substantial legal and scholarly foundation.

Now assume the skeptics are right and the ICJ ultimately finds that intent unproven.

Very little for the people of Gaza—and it should change little for the rest of us.

The dead remain dead. Hospitals do not rebuild themselves, amputated limbs are not restored and families cannot return to homes that no longer exist. War crimes, crimes against humanity, extermination, persecution or starvation do not become lawful because one element of genocide remains unproven.

Nor should our moral response depend on the label. A Palestinian child’s life cannot matter less because lawyers disagree over how to classify her death. Human dignity cannot depend on nationality, religion or birthplace. And a commitment to international law cannot begin and end with genocide, as though everything short of the “crime of crimes” were tolerable.

That is the danger: “not genocide” can begin to sound like “therefore acceptable.” It is not. We can disagree over the law without disagreeing over the value of a Palestinian life. The legal distinction matters; the humanity does not change.

Even without genocide, grave violations of international law remain. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, finding reasonable grounds to believe they bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare. These are allegations, not convictions. But international criminal law does not begin and end with genocide.

Nor is this an argument against legal precision. I teach law. Elements, intent and evidence matter. Genocide cannot become a synonym for every atrocity or mass killing. But precision becomes evasion when classifying the conduct displaces confronting it.

That danger is especially acute with genocide. The Genocide Convention requires prevention, not merely punishment after the fact. Prevention cannot wait for a final judgment: international litigation takes years; human beings can be killed much faster. Whatever the ultimate classification, states remain bound to protect civilians and prevent grave violations of international law.

Omar Al-Ghazzi of the London School of Economics describes the “policing” of the word genocide in Western discussions of Gaza, warning that disputes over what may be said can obscure what is happening.

That warning matters. The findings of rights organizations, leading genocide scholars and the U.N. Commission cannot be dismissed because they are politically uncomfortable. They must be confronted on the evidence.

Nor do Hamas’ violations erase Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. Palestinian civilians do not lose their protection because Hamas breaks the law. A Palestinian life cannot count for less than any other.

The ICJ may find genocide—or conclude that the required intent was not proved. Its judgment will matter enormously for law, accountability and history. But if the answer is no, what follows? That tens of thousands of deaths were tolerable? That Palestinian children mattered less because the legal threshold for genocide was not met?

“Is it genocide?” is essential, but it cannot end the conversation. Legal distinctions matter. Human life matters more.

Faisal Kutty is professor of law at Southwestern Law School.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.