Gaza and the Question of Genocide: A Legal Examination Under International Law

1.    Background

The situation in Gaza has become a significant topic of international concern, drawing the global community's attention. As the conflict continues, various resolutions have been put forward in both the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council that criticise Israel's actions and call for an immediate return to peace, emphasising the significance of international law and the fragile state of the global order. The origin of the conflict dates back to 1948, when Israel was created through the Balfour Declaration, through which Britain agreed to the establishment of a “national home” in Palestine for Jewish people who had been dismissed due to successive acts of aggression over centuries. The Jews had historical links, while the Palestinian Arabs had been residing there for several decades. The dispute has now been restricted to a narrow piece of land between the West Bank and the Jordan River, which houses nearly three million Palestinians. The animosity between the two communities has further increased due to the expansion of settlements by the Israeli Government through targeted and closely monitored policies.

This War reached a tipping point when Israel suffered a brutal attack at the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organisation supporting the cause of the Palestinians and supposedly offering resistance against the Israeli forces. Nearly 1200 Israelis were massacred in this brutal attack with their houses being looted and families being destroyed in broad daylight. As a response to this, the Israeli government has invoked its right to self-defence, launching incessant military strikes on several locations in Gaza. These operations have resulted in widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including critical facilities like hospitals, schools and residential areas. Civilian life has come to a standstill with the death toll approaching 60,000 people. In addition, the obstruction of crucial supplies has resulted in a humanitarian emergency marked by severe deficiencies in food, medicine, and other necessary resources. A key legal issue that arises in this situation is whether the retaliatory actions taken by Israel might be categorised as genocide according to the established norms of International Humanitarian Law.

2.    Genocide or Justified Force? Unpacking the Legal Definition

As Philip Gourevitch once said, “Genocide, after all, is an exercise in community building. ”Horrifying as it sounds, this highlights a critical factor: the crime of genocide is heavily rooted in the systematic destruction of communities. The genesis of the word Genocide dates back to the times of Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people. It is derived from the Greek word “genos", meaning race or tribe, and “cide", meaning killing[1]. Through this, it can be inferred that the crime of genocide includes the killing of people based on some common personal attributes of a group of people. This principle has been further codified through the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention)[2]. It has also been recognised as customary international law. This means that regardless of whether a state has ratified the Genocide Convention, all states are bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under International Law[3].

To prove a crime of genocide, the prosecution must establish a specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to physically destroy a national, racial or ethnic group[4].

3.    Gaza Under Fire: Does the conflict meet the threshold for genocide? 

A crucial question that emerges in the context of the Gaza conflict is whether the current situation meets the legal threshold for genocide as defined under international law. Addressing this requires a nuanced examination of the facts on the ground. As outlined earlier, the Israeli government has undertaken a series of actions that appear aimed at the systematic destruction of the civilian population in Gaza. These include relentless aerial bombardments and the deliberate disruption of essential supplies, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, particularly among vulnerable groups such as women and children.

Targeting hospitals, schools, and designated rescue zones has further compounded the humanitarian crisis. Notably, the Israeli offensive in Rafah involved airstrikes on areas explicitly marked as “safe zones,”[5] Followed by the continued closure of the Rafah crossing, the primary conduit for humanitarian aid. These operations have been facilitated by the use of advanced technology and artificial intelligence, reportedly allowing Israeli forces to authorise and execute strikes within seconds. This combination of technological efficiency and strategic targeting raises serious legal and moral concerns about the intent and proportionality of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

The blockade imposed by Israel on the entry of essential supplies, combined with relentless airstrikes, has been described by the UN Secretary-General as a "man-made disaster." This characterisation is not merely rhetorical, it is substantiated by findings from the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), who has gathered evidence indicating that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived Gaza’s civilian population of resources vital for survival, including food, water, and medical aid.

Further strengthening this position, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has noted that Israel's legal and administrative measures have entrenched a regime of near-total separation between Palestinians and Israeli settlers. This violates Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[6], which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. Since the escalation of hostilities, several senior Israeli officials have made public statements endorsing policies that deny civilians access to necessities—reflecting an intent to use deprivation as a means of collective punishment. On 9 October, Israel’s Minister of Defence declared a “complete siege” of Gaza, cutting off electricity, food, and fuel, while also lifting operational constraints on Israeli forces to “eliminate everything.” In the days that followed, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure reiterated that Gaza would not receive "a drop of water or a single battery," stating that this was the response to what he called “a nation of murderers and butchers. These statements and actions, taken together, appear to reflect not only a disregard for humanitarian obligations under international law, but also a potential genocidal intent—an attempt to systematically dismantle the conditions necessary for the survival of a particular group.

Israel’s policies appear to fall squarely within the legal framework of genocide, as defined under international law. The Palestinian population has been systematically targeted as a group, subjected to life-threatening conditions through sustained military assaults and severe restrictions on humanitarian aid. These measures have led to widespread physical destruction, a sharp rise in miscarriages and stillbirths, and the infliction of serious bodily and mental harm[7]. Such acts, carried out in Gaza as well as in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, represent grave breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law. The scale and intensity of the violence have resulted in the indiscriminate and disproportionate killing of civilians on a mass scale. These actions not only devastate communities but also reflect an apparent intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group—meeting the core elements of the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention.

4.    Invoking Article 9: South Africa’s legal Standing in the Genocide case against Israel 

The key legal framework addressing genocide is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly known as the Genocide Convention). [8]Article 9 of the Convention empowers any State Party to bring a dispute concerning a State’s responsibility for genocide before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)[9]. In a landmark move, South Africa has invoked this provision to hold Israel accountable for its actions, marking a significant assertion of international legal norms. The case has since drawn global attention, with numerous countries stepping in as intervenors, amplifying the gravity of the allegations and reflecting the far-reaching implications of these humanitarian concerns on the international stage.

Conclusion

The situation in Gaza is one of the most urgent humanitarian and legal issues we face today. With the increasing death toll and widespread destruction, the international community is confronted with essential questions about maintaining the principles of international humanitarian and human rights law[10]. The measures taken by South Africa, along with the increasing number of supporting countries, indicate a crucial moment in the global perspective and response to the horrific and genocidal actions.

The proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) offer a rare opportunity not only to define state responsibility under the Genocide Convention but also to provide an occasion to reaffirm the global commitment to protecting the vulnerable populations from systematic violence. The resolution of this case will not only influence the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Still, it will also establish an essential precedent for international actions as rescuers when the fundamental aspects of humanity are threatened.

[1] Gene | Definition, Etymology, Synonyms & Antonyms. https://www.edulikes.com/gene/

[2] Genocide: History and Definition. https://abolitionjournal.org/black-genocide/

[3] Ukrainian Soldier Reveals Russia's Plan In Ukraine: 'Genocide' | IBTimes. https://www.ibtimes.com/ukrainian-soldier-reveals-russias-plan-ukraine-genocide-3534274

[4] (2024). Israel at the ICJ. Jewish Exponent, 136(42), 16.

[5] bitterlemons.org - Arab mediation. https://bitterlemons.org/previous/bl140708ed27.html

[6] Fernández Arribas, G. (2024). The ICJ Order on provisional measures of January 2024 in South Africa v. Israel on Genocide Case: An expected but disappointing decision. Paix et Securite Internationales. https://doi.org/10.25267/Paix_secur_int.2024.i12.1003

[7] Wiese, D. (2022). Nighttime Invasions, Colonial Dispossession, and Indigenous Resilience in Richard Wagamese’s Indian Horse. https://doi.org/10.2478/abcsj-2022-0004

[8]  (2024). Poland : Meeting of Advisory Legal Committee. MENA Report, (),

[9] Let’s do it again but better? Pros and Cons of Renewing the US-Italy Cultural Property MOU - Center for Art Law. https://itsartlaw.org/2019/12/05/lets-do-it-again-but-better-pros-and-cons-of-renewing-the-us-italy-cultural-property-mou/

[10] Miss Carine. https://agovc.org/miss-carine/