The Israel genocide debate thread

Post Reply New Topic

The vast majority of WP members contributing to this topic are neither Jewish, Muslim, live in the region or know people who live in the region. Same is probably true for those defining the term or saying Israel is or is not committing genocide. I don’t see why you should be an exception.

I'm against all the woke junk as much as anybody who is sane enough to see how problematic it has become. But my point was that we the outsiders are becoming just as quick to pass judgement over this mess in the middle east due to our own feelings of outrage, which like I've also pointed out is being exploided by the media.

Why should the people who have no control over what goes on over in these war zones keep getting outraged? If the US is indeed an oligarchy like everyone says that means that regardless of which side Americans pick in this stupid war, our opinions, protests, or votes wont matter because in the end the government does exactly whatever they want to do.

And I've come to realize that Americans are incapable of doing the right thing in wars like this onw no matter what they choose to do. The world treats us like we're an evil empire no matter what. Hell if we stayed out of this war between Israel and Gaza I bet we would somehow get blamed for that too.

"Damned when you do and damned when you don't" is pretty much the code we live by.

While there is no accurate enough polling on this question I am pretty confident in claiming there is a worldwide consensus that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians.

I disagree with the consensus. In short Israel’s main goal is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians not to exterminate all of them. Killing so many, flattening their homes is a means to an end not the end.

The term genocide of course was coined to describe what the Nazis did to the Jews. The Nazis diverted men and resources from the war effort for this cause. Despite the German war situation becoming dire and thus more resources needed for the war effort the extermination campaign intensified. That shows an intent to exterminate as primary goal that there is little evidence Israel has.

Genocide: The word is everywhere. It hounds us on our screens, and it haunts us in our sleep. It inflames emotions like few other terms do.

"Genocide" simultaneously carries legal, moral, historical, comparative and strategic meaning. Does it fit the legal definition, codified by the United Nations in 1948 and incorporated into the 1998 Rome Statute, the legal basis for the International Criminal Court? Should one use the term out of moral integrity? Is it recognizably similar to genocides of the past or present?

But the one factor that seems common to anyone either employing or opposing the term is the strategic potential – they are hoping the argument changes minds. Does it work?

The shock and the paralysis
It's hard to tell, because the debate has become muddled and very extensive. In his long and pained essays, Omer Bartov, one of the world's foremost genocide scholars, first argued that the war in response to October 7 did not yield evidence of genocide in November 2023, but it does now. His claims launched waves of responses, from academic blogs with a judicious inquiry about what the debate has come to represent, to responses from New York Times' columnists ("no, it's not"). Haaretz has also hosted a vigorous debate over the issue – with Bartov, and additional voices, also the top thinkers and scholars, arguing and responding to one another.

Further, many groups or speakers engaging with the term fall somewhere along a tribal or ideological spectrum: Those who accused Israel of genocide on October 8 probably thought Israel was doing so before October 7, too. These are not good faith arguments.

Others, like Amnesty International, waited over a year from the start of the war, then in December 2024 published an extensive study nearly 300 pages long, for which it conducted over 200 interviews. But it was a report whose conclusion was never in doubt. The authors only briefly name-checked Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, having issued a seven-page summary also last December, promising a separate forthcoming report on the topic. Amnesty's genocide report sparked a clash with the local Israeli chapter of Amnesty, who disputed the conclusion. Amnesty International suspended the Israel branch for two years in response.

Just on the other side of the spectrum lies the recent report by Danny Orbach, Jonathan Boxman, Yagil Henkin, Jonathan Braverman for Bar-Ilan University, weighing in at 277 pages. This report is systematic, comparative and quantitative, also drawing on an extensive and transparent range of sources.

Yet similarly, the authors' conclusions were never in doubt: Most chapters conclude that the most incriminating observations about the devastation in Gaza from pretty much all sources – from international humanitarian agencies, war scholars, medical professionals and the entire global media are wrong, exaggerated, misunderstood or relatively normal compared to other wars.

The authors do note some problematic incidents and policy decisions on Israel's part, but since nothing is as bad as it appears, there is no genocide; one of their biggest concerns is that all these wrongful exaggerations lead to "a terrible image."

And of course, at the far end, Israel's most staunch defenders reject the notion that Israel could ever perpetrate genocide, and the only proof that's needed is talking points.

Interestingly, both Bret Stephens in the New York Times and the authors of the Bar-Ilan report expressed their concern about cheapening or trivializing the term.

"Rather than deterring aggressors and preventing atrocities, the term 'genocide' will lose its profound legal and emotional weight, becoming a political tool. In future crises, including those where deliberate, systematic efforts to annihilate a nation or group occur, the trivialization of genocide will serve as an excuse for future atrocities ... international laws meant to protect vulnerable populations could be severely undermined, with grave consequences for all of humanity," the Bar-Ilan authors wrote.

The logic is hard to follow: A genocidal criminal somewhere in the world plans to annihilate a group, but worries that he might be accused of genocide. Then he recalls that the word has been trivialized (after being applied to the case of Gaza which is ... trivial?) and can apply to any extreme wartime situation. Satisfied, he goes on to commit the atrocities with impunity, and the situation is repeated among all of humanity? Maybe I misunderstood.

Or maybe each side's arguments simply generate an emotional backlash and cause people to dig into their pre-existing convictions. What good is the debate in that case?

Making sense of the maelstrom
Since intention matters in a conversation about genocide, it's worth remembering what each side is trying to do: Those researching and writing about genocide in a serious way are desperate to stop it. Those who spend their skills and hours sifting through the vast horrors of Gaza to pick apart the suspicions of genocide are desperate to ... what?

It's impossible to shake the impression that ultimately the aim of people devoting such great efforts to dispelling the genocide charge are ultimately seeking to justify a war which frankly cannot be justified at this point.

Stephens of the New York Times argues that the term must be avoided because it fuels antisemitic tropes based on bad-faith accusations. That's a legitimate concern, but it summarily ignores all the serious genocide arguments by some of the world's best researchers, many of them Jewish Israelis, made with the only aim that matters: stopping the slaughter.

Here are two examples of extremely valuable, considered examinations of genocide. The historian Lee Mordechai has produced a terrifyingly a meticulous report about the catastrophic destruction in Gaza, with rolling updates, exhaustively sourced and easy to read – driven by his own conscience with no organizational or institutional agenda.

A. Dirk Moses, another one of the world's outstanding genocide scholars, argues compellingly that the international law definitions are inadequate anyway, because they were designed to be narrowly applied, so that states could commit horrific slaughter against an enemy in wartime.

The insight applies to other conflicts, such as Russia and Ukraine – and once again, the intention behind this argument is to re-think how the term is defined, in order to stop the crimes against human beings.

If the word genocide is too troubling for you personally, move on – focus instead on the relentless investigations by Haaretz's Nir Hasson, which answer questions like why so many Gazans are getting shot and killed trying to reach food centers, and how many are actually dying? Look at the pictures of starving children and stop worrying about what to call it: Focus instead on ending the war.

I understand Palestinians who feel abandoned by those unwilling to use the term. But right now, the verbal litmus test is less important than rallying all people who support an end to this war, using whatever language they are capable of employing. And while I may personally understand the emotional anguish that compels people to spend their days countering the genocide charge, the question remains: What side of history and humanity are you on?

Why are we having this conversation? If the word genocide haunts you, what should be haunting you is Gaza.

I don't remember anyone calling it "genocide" already on October 8, 2023, before Israel's counter-attack had even begun.

I do remember some people calling it "genocide" -- and referring to Biden as "Genocide Joe" -- in November 2023, within a few weeks after Israel began attacking Gaza. At that point, calling it "genocide" seemed to me to be premature.

But, by the time South Africa brought its formal charges of genocide, the term seemed to me to be justified.

20th Century
In 2010, historians Martin Shaw and Omer Bartov debated whether the 1948 Nakba should be regarded as a genocide, with Shaw arguing that it could and with Bartov disagreeing. Daud Abdullah, the former Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, has said: "Given the declared intent of the Zionist leaders, this wholesale destruction and depopulation of Palestinian villages fit[s] easily with the definition of genocide as cited in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide." Historian John Docker has also written several papers detailing the Nakba as a genocide.Several scholars have written that Palestinians suffered ethnic cleansing during the Nakba, but that they did not consider the event to have been genocide.

Naska
Academic Clare Brandabur includes the Naksa (known as the 1967 Palestinian exodus) in the actions conducted by Israel that show a pattern that seeks the "destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group". This view is supported by later academics as well. The Naksa was the expulsion of around 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians during and in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, including the razing of numerous Palestinian villages.

Sabra and Shatila massacre
In September 1982, between 460 and 3,500 civilians—mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shia Muslims—were killed in Beirut's Sabra neighborhood and in the adjacent Shatila refugee camp during the Lebanese Civil War. The killings were carried out by the Lebanese Forces, one of the main Christian militias in Lebanon at the time. Between the evening of 16 September and the morning of 18 September, the Lebanese militia carried out the killings while the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had the Palestinian camp surrounded.The IDF had ordered the militia to clear out the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Sabra and Shatila as part of a larger Israeli maneuver into western Beirut. As the massacre unfolded, the IDF received reports of atrocities being committed, but did not take any action to stop it.

On 16 December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the Sabra and Shatila massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.The voting record on section D of Resolution 37/123 was: yes: 123; no: 0; abstentions: 22; non-voting: 12.

That same year an independent commission headed by Seán MacBride investigated reported violations of International Law by Israel and four of its six members concluded that "the deliberate destruction of the national and cultural rights and identity of the Palestinian people amount[ed] to genocide". In its conclusion, the commission recommended "that a competent international body be designed or established to clarify the conception of genocide in relation to Israeli policies and practices toward the Palestinian people".

21st century

Blockade of Gaza
The restrictions on movement and goods in Gaza imposed by Israel date to the early 1990s. After Hamas took over in 2007, Israel significantly intensified existing movement restrictions and imposed a complete blockade on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip. In the same year, Egypt closed the Rafah Border Crossing.Many protestors across the globe called the blockade an act of genocide, with the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez recalling Venezuela's ambassador in Israel and calling Israel's attacks "genocide".
Israeli New Historian Ilan Pappé has argued that genocide "is the only appropriate way to describe what the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip".In his 2017 book, Ten Myths About Israel, Pappé wrote: "Israel's claim that its actions since 2006 have been part of a self-defensive war against terror. I will venture to call ... an incremental genocide of the people of Gaza."

2008 Gaza War
The 2008 Gaza War, also known as 'Operation Cast Lead'and the 'Gaza Massacre', was a three-week armed conflict between Gaza Strip Palestinian paramilitary groups and the Israel Defense Forces that began on 27 December 2008 and ended on 18 January 2009 with a unilateral ceasefire. The conflict resulted in 1,166–1,417 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths. Over 46,000 homes were destroyed in Gaza, making more than 100,000 people homeless.

American human rights lawyer Francis Boyle and historian Ilan Pappé both consider Israel's actions against Gaza in the 2008 Gaza War to be genocidal.

2014 Gaza War
The 2014 Gaza War, also referred to as Operation Protective Edge, was a military operation launched by Israel on 8 July 2014 in the Gaza Strip. Al-Haq, a Palestinian Human Rights organization, concluded in a report that serious violations of international law were committed in the course of the 2014 Israeli offensive against Gaza. The organization, along with other Palestinian human rights organizations the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and Addameer, submitted a legal file to the International Criminal Court encouraging it to begin an investigation and prosecution into the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the course of Israel's 2014 Gaza offensive. The crime of genocide was referenced as an Israeli crime by these groups. Additionally, dozens of Holocaust survivors, along with hundreds of descendants of Holocaust survivors and victims, accused Israel of "genocide" for the deaths of more than 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza during the 2014 Gaza War. In a September statement to the United Nations, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the war amounted to a genocidal crime. Political analyst and diplomat Abukar Arman drew parallels between what he called the "genocide in Palestine" and the Darfur genocide, highlighting what he believes to be political motives for the international community labelling Darfur a genocide, but not Palestine

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis
During the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, a video circulated on social media showing Israelis celebrating at the Western Wall, whilst a tree near the Al-Aqsa Mosque burns in the background. A large crowd of Israeli Jews gathered around a fire near the mosque on 10 May, chanting yimakh shemam, a Hebrew curse meaning "may their names be erased". IfNotNow co-founder and B'Tselem USA director Simone Zimmerman criticized them as exhibiting "genocidal animus towards Palestinians — emboldened and unfiltered"

In an opinion survey of American Jews, commissioned by the Jewish Electorate Institute following the 2021 crisis, 22 percent agreed that "Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians," and Matt Boxer in The Forward noted that the poll may have underestimated the percentage of American Jews who have a critical view of Israel because it undercounted secular Jews, who tend to be less attached to Israel.

I'm still following the ICJ case. It will be a while before it's adjudicated on.

Our current Prime Minister, Nawaf Samal, was at the former president of the ICJ; and an arrest warrant against Netanyahu was issued during his time.

Yet, Hezbollah here are accusing him of being a “western puppet” because he is attempting to do the 1701 resolution which may save us from another war soon - :-/
This shows you how nothing pleases them, they just want Lebanon to be the spearhead in this holy war against Israel (until the arrival of the Mahdi, aka forever) - that’s why I despise anyone here on WP who sympathizes with Iran and Hezbollah - not debatable.

I think that you're confusing the ICJ with the ICC (which not all countries have signed up to and so not all recognise). The ICJ does not do criminal trials against individuals, so he would not have anything to do with Netanyahu's arrest warrant. Nonetheless, I still agree with you about his policy about enforcing that UN resolution being correct.

Now you made me confused, according to gemini in search result:

« The current President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is Judge Yūji Iwasawa, who was elected on March 6, 2025, and will serve until February 5, 2027. He succeeded Judge Nawaf Salam, who served as President from February 6, 2024, to January 14, 2025, and is now Prime Minister of Lebanon »

Here clarifies the thing:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/internat ... ews-report

Yes, it was the ICC, not the ICJ that issued the individual warrant, the ICJ on the other hand is doing the Gaza case.

Two prominent Israeli rights groups on Monday said their country is committing genocide in Gaza, the first time that local Jewish-led organizations have made such accusations against Israel during nearly 22 months of war.

The claims by B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel add to an explosive debate over whether Israel’s military offensive in Gaza — launched in response to Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack that killed some 1,200 people and took more than 250 hostage — amounts to genocide.

But in Israel, founded in the wake of the Holocaust, even the government’s strongest critics have largely refrained from making such accusations due to the deep sensitivities and strong memories of the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews. Many in Israel also view the war in Gaza as a justified response to the deadliest attack in the country’s history and not an attempt at extermination

Shattering a taboo in Israel
The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel.

“Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel ... coming to this conclusion is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality,” he said.

The reports echo international claims
The rights groups, in separate reports released jointly, said Israel’s policies in Gaza, statements by senior officials about its goals there and the systematic dismantling of the territory’s health system contributed to their conclusion of genocide.

Their claims echoed those of previous reports from international rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Like other rights groups, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have not been allowed into Gaza during the war. Their reports are based on testimonies, documents, eyewitnesses and consultations with legal experts.

Hamas’ attack on Israel that started the war sparked a shift in the country’s policy toward Palestinians in Gaza from “repression and control to destruction and annihilation,” B’Tselem said.

The group has long been outspoken about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It halted cooperation with the military nearly a decade ago, saying the army’s investigations into wrongdoing weren’t serious, and it has accused Israel of being an apartheid state.

The PHRI report was a detailed, legal-medical analysis focusing on what it called the step-by-step dismantling of Gaza’s health and life-sustaining systems including electricity, clean water and access to food.

Its report says Israel has committed three of the acts of genocide defined by international law, including “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

The Israeli rights groups said repeated statements by Israeli officials and the military endorsing the total destruction, starvation and permanent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, combined with policies on the ground, have demonstrated that Israel is intentionally trying to destroy Palestinian society.

Gaza’s health ministry said on Monday that 147 people, mostly children, have died from malnutrition-related causes. The ministry operates under the Hamas government and is seen by the U.N. as the most reliable source of data on casualties.

A ‘painful’ conclusion
The term “genocide” strikes a chord in Israel, where Israelis grow up learning about the Holocaust and hearing survivors’ harrowing stories, while promising it would never happen again.

The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the murder by Nazi Germany of 6 million Jews. It defines genocide as acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

“As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, it’s very painful for me to be reaching this conclusion,” said Shalev from PHRI. But after growing up in a society where the Holocaust was so important, it demands some kind of responsibility, he said.

Until now, Israeli criticism of the war in Gaza has been focused on Netanyahu and whether his wartime decision-making has been politically motivated and delayed the return of hostages — 50 of them still in Gaza.

Broader scrutiny of Israel’s conduct in Gaza has been limited for multiple reasons. Despite the vast destruction and death in the territory and Israel’s growing international isolation, most Israelis have believed for much of the war in its righteousness.

And with most Jewish Israelis serving in the army, it’s difficult for most people to fathom that their relatives in uniform could be carrying out genocide. Some soldiers, however, have refused to fight in the war.

Jeffrey Herf, a historian who has published much on antisemitism, said the allegation of genocide doesn’t take into account that there is a war between two parties. He said it ignores Hamas as a military force and Israel’s right to defend itself.

After groups like B’Tselem in recent years accused Israel of apartheid, more mainstream voices in Israel also picked up the claim, although in less sweeping ways.

Israeli historian Tom Segev said he’s not sure the new reports and their allegations will have an impact on the public.

“The major thing for Israelis is a question of the hostages, not necessarily the fate of the population in Gaza,” he said. But he said what’s happening in Gaza is undermining the ideological and moral justification for the existence of Israel.

The rights groups said the international community hasn’t done enough to protect Palestinians and are calling on the world, including Israelis who have stayed silent, to speak up.

“We have an obligation to do everything we can to speak the truth about this, to stand by the victims,” said Sarit Michaeli, the international director for B’Tselem

In his New York Times column titled “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It,” Omer Bartov accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. As a professor of genocide studies at Brown University, he should know better. Genocide is not defined by a few comments taken out of context, by estimates of casualties or destruction, or by how war looks in headlines or on social media. It is defined by specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part. That is a high legal bar. Bartov did not meet it. He did not even try.

I am not a lawyer or a political activist. I am a war expert. I have led soldiers in combat. I have trained military units in urban warfare for decades, and studied and taught military history, strategy and the laws of war for years. Since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, I have been to Gaza four times embedded with the Israel Defense Forces. I have interviewed the prime minister of Israel, the defense minister, the IDF chief of staff, the leadership of the Southern Command, and dozens of commanders and soldiers on the front lines. I have reviewed their orders, watched their targeting process and seen soldiers take real risks to avoid harming civilians. Nothing I have seen or studied resembles genocide or genocidal intent.

Bartov claims that five statements by Israeli leaders prove genocidal intent. He begins with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comment on Oct. 7 that Hamas and Palestinian terrorists would “pay a huge price” for the massacre of 1,200 people and the kidnapping of 251 others. That is not a call for genocide. It is what any leader would say after the worst terrorist attack in the nation’s history.

He also cites Netanyahu’s statements that Hamas would be destroyed and that civilians should evacuate combat zones. That is not evidence of a desire to destroy a people. It is what professional militaries do when fighting an enemy that hides among civilians.

Bartov presents Netanyahu’s reference to “remember Amalek” as a smoking gun. But this is a phrase from Jewish history and tradition. It is engraved at Israel’s Holocaust memorial—Yad Vashem: The World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem—and also appears on the Holocaust memorial in The Hague. In both places, it serves as a warning to remain vigilant against threats, not as a call for mass killing.

MOST POPULAR
A Houthi terrorist takes part in a parade in Sanaa, Yemen, on July 24, 2025. Photo by Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images.
Houthis training for invasion of Israel—report
July 28, 2025
Israeli soldiers from the 646th Brigade carry out operations in the Gaza Strip, dismantling Hamas terror tunnels, searching buildings for weapons caches, and securing captured militant infrastructure during a months-long campaign across multiple neighborhoods. Credit: IDF.
IDF: Troops destroy Hamas tunnel, kill hundreds of terrorists
July 27, 2025
Palestinians receive meals distributed by charities in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip, Dec. 22, 2024. Photo by Ali Hassan/Flash90.
Gaza ‘starvation’ poster child has genetic condition, left Strip with Israel’s help
July 28, 2025
The professor also highlights former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s use of the term “human animals” to describe Hamas fighters. That is not a war crime. After the slaughter, rape and atrocities done to civilians on Oct. 7, many would understand or even share that reaction.

Unable to find intent among those actually directing the war, Bartov turns to far-right politicians like Bezalel Smotrich and Nissim Vaturi. These individuals do not command troops, issue orders or shape battlefield decisions. I have studied the actual orders. They focus on destroying the Hamas terrorist organization, rescuing the remaining hostages and protecting civilians in Gaza whenever possible. Their rhetoric is irrelevant to the legal case.

Israel has taken extraordinary steps to limit civilian harm. It warns before attacks using text messages, phone calls, leaflets and broadcasts. It opens safe corridors and pauses operations so civilians can leave combat areas. It tracks civilian presence down to the building level. I have seen missions delayed or canceled because children were nearby. I have seen Israeli troops come under fire and still be ordered not to shoot back because civilians might be harmed.

Israel has delivered more humanitarian aid to Gaza than any military in history has provided to an enemy population during wartime. More than 94,000 trucks carrying more than 1.8 million tons of aid have entered the territory. Israel has supported hospitals, repaired water pipelines, increased access to clean water and enabled more than 36,000 patients to leave Gaza for treatment abroad.

The IDF has coordinated millions of vaccine doses, supplied fuel for hospitals and infrastructure, and facilitated the flow of food and medicine through the United Nations, aid groups and private partners. The U.S.–Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation alone has delivered more than 82 million meals—1 million to 2 million a day—while weakening Hamas’s control over aid. This is not genocide. It is a responsible and historic mid-war humanitarian policy.

Bartov cites death tolls from Hamas health authorities without question. He says 58,000 have been killed, including 17,000 children. But these numbers come from a terrorist organization. They mix civilians and fighters, and count anyone under 18 as a child, even though Hamas uses teenagers and younger children as combatants. The figures are not independently verified and have been shown to contain false details, including names, ages and sex. Civilian deaths are tragic, but in Gaza, they are also part of Hamas’s strategy.

No military operation is judged solely by body counts or destruction figures. If we used Bartov’s logic, every major war would be called genocide. A total of 2 million civilians died in the Korean War, an average of 54,000 per month. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars killed hundreds of thousands. The fight against ISIS leveled multiple cities and killed tens of thousands. None of those wars was considered genocidal. War is evaluated based on the actions of commanders, the goals set by leaders and how well the military follows the laws of war, not by statistics taken out of context.

War is hell. It is inhumane, destructive and ugly. But it is not automatically a crime. Nations must not target civilians. They must follow the rules of distinction, proportionality and take all possible care to avoid civilian harm. Israel is doing that. I have seen it.

In Rafah this summer, Israel spent weeks preparing evacuations. It opened new safe areas and waited until civilians had moved before striking Hamas targets. That operation killed Hamas’s top commander, recovered hostages and kept civilian deaths very low. It was a clear example of Israel’s extraordinary intent and actions to protect civilians while targeting only Hamas, a part of the story ignored by those who reduce war to headlines and numbers.

What is happening in Gaza is tragic. But it is not genocide. And it is not illegal.

Genocide requires clear, provable intent to destroy a people through sustained, deliberate actions. That burden of proof has not been met. Bartov and others have not even tried.

Likewise, the laws of war do not prohibit war itself. The laws of war require that military operations distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, that force be proportional to the objective, and that commanders take all feasible precautions to protect civilian life. I have watched the IDF do exactly that. I have seen restraint, humanitarian aid and deliberate compliance with legal standards, often at tactical cost.

This is not a campaign of extermination. It is a war against Hamas, a terrorist army embedded in civilian areas by design.

The law matters. So does precision. And, above all, truth matters.