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 for the discussions all, sorry to be signing off before you've had a chance to respond - not trying to run off with the last word @Beachtastic, I promise... but I also have to call it an evening.

Best wishes to you and everyone in the thread.

Small details that just don't help Israel's case here, issue #9273636 or so:

The Israeli High Court ruled that, yes, Israel actually does have to ensure that people held in its prisons have access to the bare minimums required for meaningful survival.

The Israeli state's reaction?
"We have already become accustomed to the fact that Supreme Court judges are not content with their judicial role and are taking over running the state. It turns out that even that is not enough, and now they have also crowned themselves judges on Master Chef," the minister wrote in a statement to the media.

"While the hostages are starving in the tunnels, a pair of High Court judges (Daphne Barak-Erez and Ofer Grosskopf) are requiring that the food provided to the worst of terrorists be improved. This ruling is more proof, for those who still need proof, of the magnitude of the harm the Supreme Court is causing to Israel's security." (Source: Haaretz)

This kind of stuff if where legals nails in the coffin are forged: openly vindictive. Openly in favour of "yes, we should have the right to starve people under our total control ... because [insert reasons]." The thing is: people die without food. That is regardless of who and where they are. It's hard to argue this is "incidental".

Firstly I think the previous poster hit the nail on the head, in saying this only highlights the flaws in our international legal system. What is obvious is genocidal intent, if intent is taken to mean a dominant narrative of dehumanisation of the Arabs (cockroaches, vermin, etc) together with clear actions to, as you say, reduce the population of Gaza. If the aim is to prevent future genocides then dehumanisation is a key indicator.

The pp mentions holes in the codification of genocide as a crime, assessed through increasingly complex legal and scholarly definitions. It’s a philosophical debate almost, conceptualising ‘intent’: which is now an abstract concept and even when members of the knesset say things like:

“Gaza should be handled like Hiroshima”
“Whoever stays there should be eliminated”
“There is one and only solution, which is to completely destroy Gaza before invading it... Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy.”
(all actual quotes, you can look them up)

It is still considered ‘complex’ and ‘not proven’.

I think alongside this, it’s relevant to note Israel is a middle- high income country, for all intents and purposes a Western democracy. We have seen on this and other threads people complaining Israel is held to a higher standard than other countries, Sudan for example is a contemporary situation that is often quoted. And I guess they are right, in the sense that a Western democracy, yes, will probably be held to different standards. And there is what I think is the problem. A Western country is committing what is obviously genocide, so let’s get out the statute books and find loopholes in the legal fine print.

I totally agree with all you’ve said. The genocidal rhetoric throughout this conflict has been deeply disturbing as the pain and suffering has gone on and on. I find it hard when people are pro-Israel and don’t show any concern about such statements or when people suggest it’s just a couple of powerless blokes talking sh*t. I think a lot of the case SA brought is related to rhetoric.

People have previously had a problem with me suggesting that more should be expected from a western/liberal democracy than a terrorist group but that obviously has to be the case. I’m not infantilising Hamas or absolving them of responsibility - it’s just being realistic about terrorists. We could broadcast daily a plea for potential terrorists in the UK not to hurt us or to stop plotting atrocities and they wouldn’t give it a second thought. They simply don’t care.

On the flip side, as you say, we shouldn’t agonise over the details more when it’s one of ‘us’ - genocide is what it is no matter who is doing it.

I don't think anyone has suggested we could broadcast daily a plea for potential terrorists in the UK not to hurt us or to stop plotting atrocities and they wouldn’t give it a second thought.
I have no idea who thinks that would be effective. Where is the concerted effort from the international comunity, particularly in the middle east to defeat Hamas and come up with a credible path to peace that assures Istael's security?

The reason people say it isn’t proven is because a few idiots tossing off some hyperbole is not evidence of a planned and executed crime. You have to demonstrate that what they said was not just rhetoric, but translated into orders to troops etc. Many of the most objectionable statements were made by people with no actual role in directing the war.

I also think it’s a bit condescending that we can only expect western democracies to uphold basic human rights. Fair enough to have low expectations for Hamas but surely we should raise the bar for the Saudis and the Chinese.

Huge thanks to this OP for scholarly and measured input to this thread.

Why do you get involved in these threads? Given all that you seem to do on them is throw around personal attacks and spam emojis. Does insulting strangers on the internet anonymously ease your conscience?

So why then would international pressure or protests impact what Hamas are doing? I’m sure we’ve discussed before that that’s what we should be doing instead of speaking out against Israel’s actions.

Right Wing extremists, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, are incredibly powerful: if they walk (which they have threatened to do over ceasefires and other things before), then BN loses the majority in the Knesset. That’s political power. Minimising this power/influence in the government is ignoring facts. Furthermore, the things Smotrich in particular has said match the situation in Gaza today - I can find the exact quote if you need it but it’s along the lines of push them all into an area in the south, flatten Gaza, give them no hope, no future and then tell them to live elsewhere.

In the earlier days of the war, the Defence minister said incredibly dehumanising things about Palestinians as did BN (pretty powerful, I’d say). Then there’s the President of Israel who gave a green flag for collective punishment, “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”. Toned down this rhetoric in public (a genocide case being brought against you will do that) but who knows what’s said behind closed doors.

Deputy Knesset speaker Vaturi (BN’s party) said that Israelis had one common goal, “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” Israeli Heritage Minister Eliyahu, (another far-right member of the parliament), suggested that Israel drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza and said there were “no uninvolved civilians” in the territory.

So you can pretend that it’s a bunch of random extremists with no power but it isn’t: it is powerful people who are are saying these things and it is clear that the views are widespread in the Knesset. These aren’t even all the examples.

I have said in previous posts that this may or may not be legally genocide, it may or may not be ethnic cleansing. The labels are important and I can see why people are attaching them to Israel and Hamas: they are used to convey the horrors of what has happened. Genocide has a culture meaning as well as a legal one. BUT the labels not all that matters. It is still terrible what is happening in Gaza: withholding/limiting aid and using starvation as a war tactic, militarising aid and making it dangerous to get, flattening basically everything in Gaza, the destruction in such a heavily populated area, destroying the medical infrastructure in a war zone (including attacking hospitals still being used or asking patients who cannot be evacuated to evacuate), the lack of humanitarian shelter for displaced people, the rhetoric used by the Israeli government. None for that is okay and I don’t believe you should just shrug these things off as ‘what war is’.

I also want to clarify that I don’t think only Western/liberal democracies should be held to these standards. What I said is that they should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist organisation. Why this is uncomfortable/unfair to some people is shocking to me. Clearly there is a difference between the two. I wouldn’t say this about other forms of government (even if some may assert that LD is the gold standard of ruling in the world) or about other countries as lowering the bar in that way I see as fundamentally rooted in racism. But the idea that terrorists - the people who planned and executed 7/10 - are going to act with humanity or reason is laughable. They don’t care about anyone, including themselves, living or dying. They have a cause and they’ll fight til they die.

Im not sure I understand your point. Pleading with Hamas is not going to cut through. Obviously. Protests won't impact Hamas directly but it would have shown them they had no public support. Instead the protests around europe have encouraged and emboldened them.
The protests are aimed at our government so to have made it clear that the public's priority was for Hamas to hand over the hostages, surrender and disarm & for the government to work towards that end and a workable peace involving the key players in tbe ME especially those that protect Hamas. Cutting off that protection & finance.That would have been a lot more useful than.useful idiots shouting 'resistance is justified' and 'Houthis make us proud'.

I disagree because Hamas were emboldened enough with no ‘support’ (anti-Israel matches every 2mins) from the West to plan and execute 7/10. I don’t think things in Gaza would play out particularly differently if there were no anti-Israel protests. Hamas were always going to use human shields and tunnels, they were always going to fight until the bitter end, they were always going to capitalise from civilian suffering because of who they are and what they believe. I’m not sure how you think they’ve become more emboldened since 7/10 but happy to discuss!

I’m sure Hamas are enjoying the criticism of Israel but that is on Israel not on the people criticising them. Israel should stop doing things that ‘help’ Hamas propaganda. I personally don’t like the idea of ignoring what Israel is doing for the sake of Israel’s aim (if that is purely to defeat the Gazan reps of Hamas) because that further dehumanises civilians caught up in it.

By the way, I don’t mean the war is what Israel should stop. I’ve explained before that defeating Hamas in Gaza is an understandable reason for war. But the dehumanisation of Gazans and the complete destruction of theirs homes and seemingly tactical removal of their right to food and medical aid is something to criticise.

disagree because Hamas were emboldened enough with no ‘support’ (anti-Israel matches every 2mins) from the West to plan and execute 7/10. I don’t think things in Gaza would play out particularly differently if there were no anti-Israel protests.
Of course it would have made a difference if the world had said 7/10 was a step too far. That it was not justified resistance and all sources of Hamas, power, finance and protection would be closed down. Instead vast numbers of voters in constituencies across the US and Europe came out in support of Hamas before Israel ramped up the war and will only coubtenance criticism of Israel.

The problem isnot ignoring what Israel is doing. This must be one of the most scrutinised wars in history. The problem is ignoring what Hamas is doing as if they are little children that cant be disciplined.

I'll be honest, I have no idea 🤡
I'm guessing you have a law background 😉
...and I... very clearly, don't! 😬

To me, though, sorry but this seems like a kind of legalistic casuistry, because we just don't have access to what's informing Israel's military decisions. I'm guessing that behind the scenes, various governments have more information to go on, but maybe not (I'm sure even Israel is having to second-guess some things; war is messy, and mistakes are always made, as well as crimes by rogue operators).

Surely it's impossible, premature, and actually rather callous to insist on making a judgement without the full picture? It will come in time, but until then I'd say the facts speak for themselves: Israel is clearly focused on destroying Hamas's infrastructure -- an extremely difficult demolition that is complicated by about 400 miles of tunnels underground and strategic bases which, unfortunately, are sited under structures important for civilian welfare. What else are they supposed to do, given that Hamas have always promised to repeat their attacks?

The word "proportionate" (not responding directly to your post; conflating as usual!!! 😁) is a tricky one. The sheer savagery of 7/10 reminded me of the Rwandan massacre, but took it up a notch with its psychological sadism, including all the gaslighting that has followed. Personally I don't want to contribute to that gaslighting by critically picking over what damning labels we can apply to Israel's response to such a shocking and brutal act of unequivocal genocide -- especially as this feeds into the rising tide of antisemitism here in the UK, which worries me at least as much as the situation in the Middle East.

We agree then. I don’t think the things you list are ok either (although given all the misinformation around I don’t assume them all to be true), I just don’t think the term genocide is being applied correctly at this point.

Apologies - potentially crossed wires: I think the people backing/financing/helping Hamas could have had an impact if they suddenly decided after 7/10 that that was too far, but if they had a hand in financing and executing it, I’m not sure why they’d suddenly have a change of heart. I don’t think that Western input makes much of a difference because we are, in basic terms, the enemy. If we protested Hamas, we’d confirm what they already thought. If we say nothing, they carry on as is. If we protest Israel, at least Israel are pressured to fulfil their responsibilities to civilians.

And I think it’s important to note that I think some of the early protests were not pro-Hamas but ongoing anti-Israel protesters who immediately recognised the rhetoric being used linked with the scale of the response. Some, as I’ve said before, would’ve been immediately concerned that Israel would use this as an opportunity to destroy Gaza (because that’s how they immediately spoke about it and that is how violent their response was). Again, I don’t think the war is without justification: 7/10 was abhorrent. But I think it’s important to remember that there a lot of people pre 7/10 who felt that Israel’s relationship with Gaza was problematic. I also understand that some early protesters were terrorist sympathisers or antisemitic people and I don’t support or empathise with them at all!

Yes, so many thanks.

UK government says Israel is not committing genocide…

The grown ups are in the room.

I note what he says about European security on the first page.

It hasn’t been given as much coverage as one might expect for some reason…

The UK government is a US lapdog and would plunge into poverty if it goes against America’s geopolitical wishes. Therefore it has no real freedom to disagree with America, even if Trump is in power.

To those who would argue that there is no intent, I would argue that the intent is very obvious. Bombing nearly 100% of civil infrastructure is a start. Then, there is the fact that several key politicians are proposing Greater Israel, which involves taking over Palestine completely and other countries in the Middle East. The people that want Greater Israel are not some random nutcases who appear on tv, they are politicians in the current Israeli government. There is also the likening of Palestinians to rats, not just Hamas members. This Hamas thing is to make the genocide more palatable to Western ears, similar to how Russia’s invasion is “necessary” to protect itself from NATO and “nazis”. The evidence for that is how Netanyahu has broken agreements again and again.

The evidence for the 'Hamas thing' is the existence and entire history of a terrorist organisation with longstanding genocidal intent, culminating in the attacks of 7 October.

You know geopolitics is all about strategic alliances right? Which superpower do you think Europeans are more aligned with politically....US, Russia, China.
I know there are some extreme leftists who align with China & Russia but it doesn't take a very hard look to realise their old feudal systems are still operating under a different and equally brutal label.
There's a lot of money in the middle east and it's influence is everywhere, if 'stop oil' succeeds that diversification will sustain influence, but empire building can create it's own challenges.

Lapdog? Sounds like a hackneyed attempt to denigrate.