Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world’s top scholars on the crime say

[Everexpanding]

An overwhelming majority of members of the world’s leading genocide scholars’ association have backed a resolution stating that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of the crime.
Eighty-six per cent of those who voted in the 500-member International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) supported the motion. The resolution states that “Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in article II of the United Nations convention for the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (1948).”

www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza-worlds-top-scholars-on-the-say

Thank you @Cinnyristhe Jewish currents piece is an interesting if very saddening article

Yes, a good article, and a difficult read. Their book, Human Shields, a history of people in the line of fire, is also very good. The chapters which cover proximate shields detail previous wars on Gaza, and the associated lawfare. The book was written prior to 2023, so only covered previous wars on Gaza. They also draw parallels between the legal defence given by Israel vis. Gaza in 2014 and Sri Lanka during the Tamil genocide, and it's difficult not to find their findings compelling. But the book is about the history of human shields, so IIRC they only really dedicate a few chapters to (on the one hand) Israel's use of Palestinian human shields and (on the other hand) Israel's designation of entire populations as shielding populations.

@Cinnyris I had a read of the article in your link and this bit stuck out:

Parties alleging the use of human shields have typically restricted the charge to limited territorial areas; in contrast, Israel has cited Hamas’s underground tunnel system to cast every square inch of Gaza as a human shield.

Don't you think that's reasonable, though? The tunnel system is pretty impressive (or at least, it was) -- the result of many years of investment and careful planning.

If Israel really have "cast every square inch of Gaza as a human shield" and have been using that as a cynical excuse for genocide, would you not have expected more than ~3% of the Gazan population to have been killed over the past 2 years?

Indeed no, I do not think that it is reasonable. This comes down to a question of military necessity.

Firstly, just because it is necessary to destroy the tunnels to achieve a military objective (call it the destruction of military infrastructure, or terrorist infrastructure, insurgency infrastructure etc.) does not mean that the destruction is permissible.

Let us say that the tunnels run under a hospital and the only way to achieve the destruction of the tunnel is to attack the hospital. That attack is only permissible if it also satisfies those other requirements of justness, e.g. proportionality. In that case, the military achievement of the action has to significantly outweigh the harm of the action: just because you have to do a thing to achieve a military objective, does not mean that you can do that thing.

It is one thing for a hospital to be actively used as a military staging point - therein the exception noted in the article can make the attack permissible if you are actually being fired upon from somewhere within a hospital; the military achievement may well significantly outweigh the harm. (See this article from Rubenstein and Roznai for more on that exception as it relates specifically to human shields: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1861161) That exception does not extend to e.g. the presence of tunnels. At least, I doubt you would have an easy time demonstrating a military achievement that significantly outweighs the harm done in the attack.

Secondly, military necessity requires that an attack be the last recourse. In this instance, it is not. There are clear and reasonable diplomatic pathways to the dismantling of Hamas and the protection of Israelis from attack from Hamas's militant wing. The wholesale destruction of the Gaza Strip was never necessary, and hence it is at-the-point-of-departure impermissible.

I doubt you would have an easy time demonstrating a military achievement that significantly outweighs the harm done in the attack.

Sorry to be like a dog with a bone, but I don't get it. Israel have managed to destroy Hamas's infrastructure without killing more than about 3% of an extremely densely populated area, over a period of 2 years. To me, that doesn't sound like genocide at all. What am I missing here? (Not being arsey, genuine question!)

Israel has destroyed 78% of all structures in the Gaza Strip, including over 90% of houses, 100% of the 1.98m people analysed in Gaza face crisis or worse levels of acute food insecurity, Israel has destroyed 81% of classified roads and 62% of the total road network, I mean the accounting of the destruction beggars belief:
https://www.ochaopt.org/content/reported-impact-snapshot-gaza-strip-3-september-2025

Even a glance at the above report tells an incredibly damning story. Is your argument that the above is proportionate? Or is it only the reported death toll that you are basing your assessment on?

Hamas has spent the past two decades investing $1 billion or so in building an entire system aimed at annihilating Israel, rather than improving life for Gazan citizens. Putting this elaborate network out of action strikes me as a very good idea. And yes, I think the actual death toll being so low (given the circumstances) is remarkable and, to me, points to targeted demolition rather than genocide.

I haven't had a chance to read everything as I have been on the march against antisemitism most of the day.
However I could not disagree more strongly with this.
It is a basic legal concept and foundation stone of civilised society that one is innocent until proven guilty.

You ask which is worse that we call Israel out for genocide, and we are wrong, or that we don't call them out, but it is genocide, and they are not held to account?

You suggest that if we don't call it genocide now then Israel may not be held to account. That's a legal nonsense. Israel will be held to account because there are legal proceedings. You don't preempt those proceedings by deciding they are guilty. And who decides? Who has the authority outside the established process?

Secondly you are suggesting that its important that 'we' (still not sure who 'we' is) call out genocide because if we dont Israel are not held to account. But you say that 'we' might be wrong? But Israel will have already been 'held to account'. Tha is a total perversion of established principles of legal justice.

So no, I do not agree that its more dangerous to not call it genocide than to falsely call it genocide.

As said before just because its not genocide doesn't mean international law shouldnt be followed, doesnt mean that if war crimes are committed they shouldnt be prosecuted.

Whether we call it genocide or not, the most important thing is to bring pressure to bear on Hamas to release the hostages, surrender and disarm. Why thid is not the focus of everyone's efforts I have no idea.

@SharonEllis Thank you for being at the march today, it is clearly much needed. I am sorry I couldn't be there.

It was huge! Very inspiring to see people come together.

Hard to ignore the fact that permissibility in war is not determined by what is or isn't a good idea, but rather by what does or does not satisfy the principles of the ethics of war. Nonetheless, first off, Israel had no recourse to war in the first place given their status as a belligerent occupier. Secondly, the recourse to war must be the final recourse. It wasn't. Israel never had to go to war to achieve its stated objectives of the war (if you even believe those stated objectives).

Targeted demolition, by which I understand that you mean (as reported in the snapshot above) 78% of the structures of the Gaza Strip, is, in this instance, a feature of the Palestinian genocide. Genocide is not just the killing of people (indeed, if you look at subsection e of article 2 of the Genocide Convention - forgive me if I get the specific article/subsection wrong, I'm on my phone - you'll see that genocide can occur without any killing at all).

I have a hard time believing that you would consider the wholesale destruction of Tel Aviv permissible simply because the IDF are deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure, both above and below ground, given that Israel has not only positioned itself to be able to carry out the annihilation of Palestine, but has also carried out the annihilation of over half of Palestine within the last 100 years.

Again, just because you can do a thing does not mean you have the right to do it. The war on Gaza never satisfied the requirement of necessity. And I am amazed that anyone could entertain the idea that the consequent destruction might be proportionate.

When a member state to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide finds reasonable grounds to believe that genocide is being committed, it triggers obligations. Those reasonable grounds have been met, and indeed the ruling from the ICJ is one such trigger point.

The "we" is the international community; we as a global humanity.

If you suspect someone of murdering someone else in the street, do you wait until they are found guilty in a court to intervene? No, you act at the point of exigency. The time to act against genocide is not after it has been determined to have occurred in court: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4

The war on Gaza never satisfied the requirement of necessity.

I don't think there's much point us arguing the toss over this, you clearly have a very different view of what's "permissible."

You do you, as MN says 🤷🏻‍♀️

"Permissible" means those things that can be done legally, either because they are allowable or justifiable. What is your view on what permissible means?

Yes - I’m parroting a couple of sources here but one scholar discussed whether the aim is to study genocide in an abstract sense or, as many are arguing, to actually prevent genocide form happening now or in the future. If the latter is the aim, then the insistence that the only reason an accused state is taking action is with the intent to commit genocide is an unrealistic bar, especially in war when one action could be done for multiple reason (e.g destroy Hamas and, more broadly, reduce the population of Gaza.

I agree with the idea that genocide law or scholarship should be there predominantly to prevent it happening again.

Mladic literally destroyed the Muslims of Srebrenica by killing all of the men. The group was destroyed. So, by his actions, and the result of his actions, we can safely assume his intent.

Israel hasn't actually destroyed the Palestinians of Gaza. It has killed a fair few of them. But the group has not been destroyed. Israel will argue they have attempted to keep civilians alive by asking them to evacuate, providing some aid, occasionally, and consistently saying the aim of the war is to destroy Hamas. In my opinion, Hamas will help Israel in their defence with the absolute contempt with which they view the lives of their own. I cant think of a genocide that could have been stopped by the surrender of the victim party at any time. I wish this could all just end now, with Hamas accepting terms.

The 2 cannot currently be compared, or one situation used to highlight another.

I respect your opinion and your rights to have it and really appreciate you coming to the discussion without constantly insisting those defending Israel are happy to see children killed etc.

I cant think of another conflict that so splits informed opinions.

I hope you have a good evening.

I cant think of another conflict that so splits informed opinions.

I don't believe in god or gods, but if I did, I'm sure the Cosmic Joker must be having a merry old time laughing at this absolute impasse for humanity. It's like an insanely ingenious endgame where black and white are completely reversed depending which way you look at it.

Just going to add that genocide doesn’t mean killing everyone:

”acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group”

The Sri Lankans argued that the Tamil genocide (obviously not their framing) could have been stopped by the surrender of the Tamil Tigers. This, of course, wasn't the case, and nor is it the case with the surrender of Hamas. The Israeli political and military leadership has made it very clear that the operation in Gaza will not end with the release of hostages and the surrender of Hamas. It might be what is said in their English-language public relations, but in Hebrew, it is a completely different story. This will not end with the surrender of Hamas.

The destruction in part of Palestinians as a distinct group in Gaza is being effectuated by Israel, not just through killing - as I said above, genocide can occur without even a single death - but through the wholesale destruction of Gaza. It comes down to the same misunderstanding about the threshold for intent: the doctrine of double effect does not fly as a defence against genocide; you cannot claim that a genocide was a foreseen but unintended consequence of some other action or system of actions, and I really doubt that you could argue that the consequences of Israel's actions in Gaza were unforeseen, when genocide scholars and international bodies devoted to the prevention of genocide were warning of that exact outcome one week after October 7th.

But doesn't that mean all wars are genocide?

Sorry if I'm being thick here!

I feel that way sometimes too, and I think that's a great way of putting it.

I have Israeli family members in my extended family who I was close to who have become more extreme in their view of Israel, and friends who have ties to Israel similarly shifted to a more extreme position, all of whom I considered to be more-or-less of the same worldview as myself who I have had to cut out of my life, and who have cut me out of their lives in turn. It is a rift that I don't think I will ever be able to understand, given that the moral dimensions seem so clear to me. I expect that they would say exactly the same of me. All are intelligent and reasoned people.

Yes, I'm aware of the 'in part' bit- although I admit I struggle with it. When is the 'part' big enough to constitute genocide? Because wars always include killing a part of a group... we don't generally call all wars genocide yet a part of a specific group always gets wiped out...

Anyway I need some lighter thoughts for the rest of the evening so I'm off now.

Yes, one thing that has often struck me in these debates is how often the very words levelled at me (or others expressing similar views) express precisely how we feel about the opposite perspective. I'm pretty sure an analysis of the conversations would show the same things being said in both directions.

It's quite bizarre!

You're not being thick, it's exactly the kind of question that has to be answered to decide whether e.g. the war on Vietnam was genocide. If there are systematic disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks, then you have to take a step back and consider the possibility of genocide.

Could those people - or that civilian infrastructure etc. - be being targeted due to perceived membership (or belonging in the case of those things that are necessary to sustain cultural identity, such as religious or cultural infrastructure) of a distinct (usually, but not necessarily) non-belligerent group, say some protected identity group of civilians.

Genocide is systematic: so is war, usually. There comes a point where the systematic destruction of war might be grounds for the accusation of genocide, when that destruction also achieves the destruction (in part etc. etc.) of a group as such. When war blurs the line between collective punishment and the pursuit of military objectives, you have to consider the possibility of genocide.

Yes, that's also my experience exactly