Gaza, Gaza Strip — Recent accusations of genocide directed at Israel have resurfaced, this time endorsed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). Critics argue that the organization is more committed to ideological positions than to upholding rigorous academic standards.
Two professionals, a human-rights lawyer and a military expert, emphasize that Israel is not engaging in genocide in Gaza. With over 40 years of combined experience in international law and military operations, they assert that their firsthand observations defy the allegations. Their efforts have included speaking to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) personnel, visiting aid distribution sites, and analyzing military orders, leading them to dismiss the genocide claims as not only erroneous but also as a distortion that aligns with Hamas propaganda.
The resolution from IAGS drew support from only about 20 percent of its members, raising questions about its validity and seriousness. Membership requirements appear minimal, with anyone able to join for a nominal fee without demonstrating significant academic expertise. Some members even include parody accounts, further undermining the credibility of the allegations. Despite this, media outlets and political figures have amplified these claims.
According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide has a specific legal definition: actions taken with the intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Proving such intent, referred to as dolus specialis, is essential. The threshold is intentionally high so that instances of mass violence do not automatically fall under the genocide category; instead, they may be classified as war crimes or crimes against humanity.
While acknowledging the painful reality of the ongoing conflict, the experts assert that Israel’s actions constitute self-defense rather than acts of genocide. They highlight that Hamas perpetrated the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023, and has publicly vowed to continue its violent campaign. Despite the dire circumstances, Israel has consistently stated that its conflict lies with Hamas, not the Palestinian people.
Critics frequently cite civilian casualties and destruction as evidence of genocidal intent. However, the authors contend that such claims misinterpret international law. If the catastrophic outcomes of war alone defined genocide, then countless conflicts throughout history could similarly be labeled as genocidal.
The authors hold Hamas responsible for much of the civilian suffering in Gaza, pointing out that the group’s military activities are often conducted amid civilian populations, using them as shields. They argued that Israel has taken unprecedented steps to minimize civilian harm, including issuing advance warnings, creating humanitarian corridors, and aborting strikes when children are present.
The authors also noted that Israel has provided significant humanitarian aid to Gaza, with over two million tons of food, medicine, and other essentials entering since the start of the conflict. Meanwhile, Hamas continues its military operations, including rocket fire into Israeli territory and hostage-taking.
Despite the challenges on the battlefield, the IDF reportedly employs precision tactics and takes great care to avoid civilian casualties, actions that starkly contrast with genocidal practices, which aim for systematic extermination. Examples of genuine genocides, such as those in Rwanda and Srebrenica, illustrate the severity of actual genocidal campaigns, making comparisons to Gaza inaccurate and disrespectful to true victims.
Exaggerating terms like genocide is not harmless; it is part of a broader strategy to delegitimize Israel, isolate it internationally, and distract from Hamas’s own crimes. Misusing this serious term compromises the integrity of international legal standards and trivializes the suffering of genuine victims.
The narrative surrounding genocide should not serve as a political tool. Careful and accurate use of language is vital, as irresponsible claims can harm both the integrity of international law and the memory of those who have suffered real genocides.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI. The information presented may not be accurate; any requests for removal, retraction, or correction can be directed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.