Yes. It’s a genocide.
It's no repeat of the Holocaust, but it’s reasonable to view Gaza as a genocide underway.
I had this post three-quarters written when (pure coincidence) The Rest is Politics podcast included a discussion about genocide in Gaza, in which Alastair Campbell expressed his view that Israel’s actions in Gaza can accurately be called genocide. I won’t deny that makes it easier for me to publish this, which is in itself revealing: calling out a genocide in Sudan or Myanmar comes with little or no blowback. Even calling out Russia’s genocidal kidnapping of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children would not incite much response, except from Moscow and its sock puppets, rightly discredited. But to call Israel’s actions a genocide is still controversial, even with a huge weight of evidence making it more or less obvious. I might be accused of antisemitism, even as many Jews, including Israeli Jews, share the view that a genocide is underway.
Define your terms
The first point is to understand the meaning of genocide. Since the definition is contained in the 1948 Genocide Convention, it is easy for anyone to read. There is an argument that genocide is a complex legal concept and we should await the determination of a court for that before using the word. But did people do that with Sudan, Myanmar or Russia? Colin Powell called out the genocide in Darfur in 2004, long before the International Criminal Court had issued any indictments (a court whose jurisdiction the US has never recognised and which is now being targeted for sanctions by the Trump regime). One of the reasons that it might be important to identify whether Israel is engaging in genocide is that for those that are in some way implicated, directly or indirectly, considering their own actions long before an international court takes action is both an act of self-preservation but also an ethically correct stance. Recent reporting that BCG, a major consultancy, was working on a plan to forcibly relocate a quarter of the population of Gaza, is a good example. The continuing role of the RAF in flying surveillance missions in support of the Israeli military, also appears to be a liability, morally and perhaps in future legal contexts. The idea that Israel acts alone without allies is far from the truth - even if it is something that Benjamin Netanyahu likes to claim. Its ongoing campaign in Gaza requires all manner of partners, supporters and enablers.
Because of the hideous precedent of the Holocaust, it is understandable that many people hold this in their mind as a definition of genocide. But the Genocide Convention takes a wider perspective, specifying “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” and then gives examples, including:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
If in reading this, your response is to conclude “that’s so broad a definition that almost anything might count,” it seems worth recalling that the Convention was written in the direct aftermath of the Holocaust and the wider events of World War II. The person most responsible for this definition was a Polish-Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, who was himself lucky to escape the Holocaust and who lost 49 relatives to it. This definition came as a direct response to the events of the Holocaust and a desire to ensure never again, not some modern ‘mission creep’.
Is what is happening in Gaza a genocide?
The biggest challenge is divining whether the actions of the Israeli authorities are part of an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Clearly, some members of the Israeli government, notably Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir are happy to make genocidal comments publicly. Ben-Gvir publicly objected in March 2025 to allowing any humanitarian aid to Gaza, calling a decision to let aid in “disastrous”. A few days ago he tweeted “A complete siege, military crushing, encouragement of migration, and settlement - these are the keys to absolute victory”. A “complete siege” would be deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Deaths from starvation are already occurring in Gaza, according to the World Health Organisation, and are expected to increase.
There are many more examples of these ideas emanating from the National Security Minister. For his part, Finance Minister Smotrich has shown a complete disregard for the entire population of Gaza, including its civilians. In 2024 he said “Nobody will let us cause 2 million civilians to die of hunger even though it might be justified and moral until our hostages are returned.” He has also called for the complete destruction of cities in Gaza and in May this year called for the complete depopulation of Gaza with the surviving population to be concentrated into a tiny strip of land next to the Egyptian border. He clarified the genocidal intent as follows: “They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places.”
Defenders of Netanyahu might argue that these two senior cabinet ministers somehow don’t represent the official policy of the wider Israeli government. But the plan for the depopulation of Gaza has the support of both the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister himself, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and confirmed in Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington DC. It is not possible to dismiss Smotrich and Ben-Gvir as loudmouth fringe elements who don’t represent the wider policy. The policy is clear and has been restated by a wide range of Israel’s current leaders.
Aside from this specific plan to make Gaza unliveable are the staggering civilian casualties amounting from the wider military actions in the Gaza Strip. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, nearly 60,000 have been killed in the war thus far (this number includes combatants). A concerted attempt was made by the Israeli government to discredit these figures, but a range of independent studies have confirmed that they are likely to be undercounting. The respected medical journal The Lancet concluded that the numbers might be many times higher.
Since the introduction of the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution system, around 800 Gazans have been killed attempting to access aid, with thousands injured. When this system was originally proposed, humanitarian experts warned that it would force huge numbers of people into a small number of distribution sites, exposing them to great danger. This is exactly what happened, raising suspicions that this was always the plan. The risks associated with this system may have led many to avoid it altogether, thereby depriving more desperate people from access to food.
Counter-arguments
The fact that Jews were themselves victims of a genocide has been used to suggest that they could not be perpetrators of another one. It’s not completely clear why this should be the case, but clearly the small number of Holocaust survivors still living are not responsible for the actions of the current Israeli government in Gaza. Furthermore, most Israelis cannot be held responsible, but that does not obviously detract from the fact that a genocide is currently happening.
By a similar token, there is no doubt that Hamas is a genocidal organisation. But there is an important difference here: whatever Hamas might hope to achieve, it has limited means to deliver on those ghastly objectives. The October 7, 2023 massacre led to the deaths of 1,200 Israelis and thousands injured, as well as hundreds of hostages. It was the biggest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. But there was never any prospect that Hamas could deny food to the population of Israel, or forcibly remove millions of people from their homes, or destroy entire cities. Ultimately, the fact that Hamas is genocidal has no real bearing on whether or not a genocide is currently underway in Gaza.
From here, where?
The failure of the international community to tackle the genocide in Gaza will resonate through history. Israel’s own experiences add complexity to this issue, but it does not obviate the moral and legal requirement for countries, corporations and individuals not to contribute to terrible crimes. This failure will leave a long tail of political impacts against leaders seen to have taken insufficient action, legal impacts for those alleged to have been involved, and possibly a years-long campaign of international justice against Israel’s current leaders. All of these can be weaponised by cynical actors, which is made more likely given widespread antisemitism. The best defence against this would be for Israel’s allies to oppose the genocide as it is underway, not to play the role of powerless bystander.