Frankly, I find the charge of genocide against Israel to be obviously absurd, one of those claims that true believers insist upon precisely because the claim is so implausible that promoting it is valuable to show you are a true believer. Hence the pressure by anti-Israel activists for everyone who purports to be “pro-Palestinian” to accept the genocide claim, or be excluded from the club.
Nevertheless, because the genocide lie is so common in public discourse over Gaza, I thought it would be useful to write a piece debunking the claim, though I wasn’t sure where I would place it. Serendipitously, Skeptic Magazine solicited an article for me, giving me the opportunity to present my case in about four thousand words, with footnotes.
I also wrote a much shorter version for my Times of Israel blog. And an even shorter synopsis follows below:
The accusation that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza has become commonplace in protests, university activism, social media campaigns, and international legal rhetoric. But one striking feature of the debate is how little attention is paid to a basic question: what would genocidal behavior actually look like, and does Israel’s conduct resemble it?
The answer is plainly no.
Genocide is not simply a war that causes extensive civilian casualties. It is the deliberate attempt to destroy a people as such. Historically recognized genocides share recognizable characteristics: civilians are targeted precisely because of their identity, and the perpetrators seek maximum civilian death rather than military victory.
Israel’s conduct in Gaza looks very different.
To begin with, Israel has repeatedly taken steps that are fundamentally inconsistent with exterminatory intent. Before major operations, the Israeli military has issued evacuation warnings through phone calls, text messages, leaflets, and media announcements. It has established humanitarian corridors and periodically paused military activity to facilitate civilian movement and aid delivery. It has employed “roof-knocking” procedures designed to warn civilians before airstrikes. Armies attempting genocide do not warn civilian populations to leave targeted areas in advance.
The broader strategic picture points in the same direction. Israel possesses overwhelming military superiority over Hamas. If Israel’s objective were truly the destruction of Palestinians as a people, the death toll could have been vastly higher within a very short time. Instead, Israel has fought a grinding urban campaign focused on Hamas infrastructure, tunnel systems, command centers, rocket launch sites, and militant leadership. The fact that civilian casualties have nevertheless been severe reflects the reality of urban warfare against an armed group deeply embedded in civilian areas, not a campaign aimed at exterminating Palestinians as such.
Indeed, Hamas’s military strategy depends heavily on operating within densely populated civilian zones. Weapons are stored in residential neighborhoods, fighters operate from civilian buildings, and command infrastructure has been constructed beneath urban areas. None of this relieves Israel of its obligations under international humanitarian law. But it does provide an obvious military explanation for large-scale civilian casualties,
The genocide accusation also struggles to explain conduct that makes little sense if extermination were the goal. Israel has facilitated substantial humanitarian aid into Gaza despite the obvious military disadvantage that aid creates by potentially benefiting Hamas. Israeli officials have repeatedly coordinated aid deliveries, fuel transfers, field hospitals, and medical evacuations under enormous international pressure and domestic controversy. Again, critics may argue these efforts are inadequate. But inadequate humanitarian precautions are not the same thing as an intent to destroy an entire population.
One must also note the political context. Accusations that Israel is genocidal long predate the current war. Versions of the claim were promoted in Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda after the Six-Day War and later reemerged at the 2001 Durban conference, where activists portrayed Zionism itself as inherently racist and genocidal. In many cases, the conclusion preceded the evidence.
The danger of stretching the term genocide beyond recognition is substantial. If every brutal urban war involving high civilian casualties becomes genocide, then the concept loses the distinctive moral and legal meaning that made it powerful in the first place.
