In recent days, both the Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some spokespersons from the Israeli Army have confirmed that military operations in the Gaza Strip will persist for several months. This aligns with previous statements from Israeli authorities, who have consistently expressed their intention to continue the campaign until the ultimate objectives of dismantling Hamas and demilitarizing the entire Gaza Strip are achieved. Many experts affirm that these goals will be hardly achievable, and would need an extremely extensive military operation, with devastating human losses on both sides.

In this context, the Israeli government is increasingly facing political challenges due to its operations in the Gaza Strip. Traditional allies, notably the United States, are becoming concerned about a military campaign that has not yielded significant tangible results against Hamas but has inflicted immense suffering on the civilian population.

In recent weeks, the term “genocide” has gained prominence in discussions about the conflict. Certain Israeli officials have used the term referring to the civil massacre orchestrated by Hamas on October 7^th. However, the term has primarily been associated with the extensive bombing campaign and land invasion carried out by the Israeli Army in the Strip. The term “genocide” has not only circulated widely on social media platforms to describe the challenges faced by the Gaza population but has also found resonance among numerous members of international institutions and experts in International Law. Others have been more cautious in employing the term, and to fully grasp the debate surrounding this issue, it is essential to examine the definition provided by International Law.

The ambiguity surrounding the term “genocide” often leads to confusion in its interpretation. In political and journalistic discourse, the term is frequently employed to describe large – scale killings or massive massacres, emphasizing the violence and brutality of a particular crime. However, it is essential to recognize that there is a precise legal definition with specific conditions.

The Genocide Convention (CPPCG), established in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly, stands as the inaugural legal framework to codify genocide as a criminal offense. Through this instrument, it was also possible to introduce mechanisms supposed to guarantee accountability and prevention, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC – CPI).

The definition of “genocide” is stated in the 1948 Convention as follows:

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The problematic point here lies on the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group”. Identifying and substantiating this specific intent presents wide difficulties and it’s practically proven by the few cases in which genocide has been internationally recognized and persecuted by the ICC. The only three cases include the Cambodian genocide in the late 70s, the Ruanda genocide in 1994 and the Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia, in 1995. To these, we must add the Holocaust, which was included among the charges in the Nuremberg trials. One of its consequences was the formulation of the Convention itself.

In the course of recent decades, spanning from 1948 to the present, many other massacres raising concerns of potential genocidal violence have occurred. Nevertheless, only the above-mentioned cases have received an official classification as such, primarily due to the challenge of establishing, with requisite certainty in international legal proceedings, the perpetrators’ “intent” to annihilate a specific group.

It is essential to underscore a critical point: there is no formal hierarchy of severity among various international crimes. This aspect presents yet another challenge in public discourse, where there tends to be an inclination to view genocide as the worst and most infamous of all crimes, implicitly suggesting that, for instance, other crimes against humanity are less severe. While International Law may not necessarily support this view, such perceptions contribute to the emergence of polarized and convoluted rhetoric and debates surrounding the allegation of genocide.

Since the beginning of hostilities on October 7^th, nearly 21’000 Palestinians have been killed, with a striking majority being civilians. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) reports that the 85% of Gaza Strip’s population has been forced to flee their home, as big part of the buildings in the Strip has been damaged or destroyed by bombings.

A recent investigative report by The New York Times has disclosed that over the past few months, the Israeli Army deployed more than 200 highly potent bombs in areas of the Gaza Strip previously designated as safe havens and recommended as shelters for civilians. The bombs mentioned by The New York Times are referred to as “2000 – pound bombs”, meaning they weigh approximately 900 kilograms. These bombs form part of the military arsenal of many Western countries: however, due to their particularly devastating effects, they are usually not used in densely populated civilian areas, such as the Gaza Strip. One of the models widely employed is the Mk – 84, capable of causing damage to objects or individuals within a radius of nearly one kilometer from the point of impact. According to the New York Times investigation, numerous bombs of this nature have been deployed on Khan Yunis, a city situated in the southern part of the Strip. This area had provided refuge for hundreds of thousands of civilians since the onset of the conflict, and its evacuation order had been issued only few hours before the bombings.

As previously highlighted, in recent weeks, numerous individuals have characterized the bombings and the Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip as constituting genocide. This label has been employed by certain leaders of Islamic nations, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as well as by several international law experts and professionals affiliated with international organizations. The most remarkable case involves Craig Mokhiber, the director of the New York office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In early November, he declared his resignation in protest against the cautious stance of the UN, asserting that the events unfolding in the Gaza Strip represent a “text-book case” of genocide.

Most importantly, on December 29^th, South Africa has filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, defining the state’s actions as “genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group”. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has drawn parallels between Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank and the apartheid regime of racial segregation in his own country, which was enforced until 1994.

Experts who suggest that there may be grounds to at least speak of a “risk of genocide”, implying that the actions of the Israeli army might demonstrate an “intent to destroy” the Palestinian group, point to several Israeli government officials using extremely violent language in discussing the war in Gaza. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stated that “ We are fighting against human animals and we are acting accordingly”, while Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, declared that “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”, referring to all Palestinians who would have responsibilities in the Hamas attack on October 7^th. However, many experts hesitate to assert that these statements are sufficient to establish an intention to commit genocide. This reluctance stems, in part, from numerous declarations by the military and government affirming efforts to safeguard civilian lives. Nonetheless, merely stating a desire to protect civilian lives means little if actions contradict this intention. Therefore, at present, proving the Israeli government’s intent for genocide is a highly challenging task.

Another factor demanding caution is the inability to conduct an independent reconstruction of the events. Typically, when international courts initiate investigations into genocide, the prosecutor carries out extensive on – site inquiries, accessing locations, examining possible mass graves and remains, and interviewing witnesses. Currently, the Gaza Strip is completely inaccessible, hindering the ability to make accusations founded on independent investigations.