The article explores the difficulties in achieving global consensus on whether the Israeli government's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. It highlights the "halo effect" associated with Israel's history as a haven for Holocaust victims, making it harder for some to accept that it could commit genocide. The author argues that the Israeli government, similar to the Rwandan government under Paul Kagame, uses self-defense as a pretext for actions resulting in mass casualties and displacement, while silencing criticism by labeling it antisemitic. The article also discusses the complexities of defining "genocide in part," contrasting the complete extermination efforts of the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide with cases where killing is a means to achieve ethnic cleansing, such as in Myanmar. The author contends that Israel's actions in Gaza, including the high civilian death toll, the siege, and the destruction of infrastructure, meet the criteria for genocide. However, the author notes that the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) jurisprudence may present a challenge due to its narrow interpretation of intent.

The article details the high civilian death toll in Gaza (more than 57,000 Palestinians since October 7, 2023), the disproportionate number of women and children among the victims, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The author cites statements by Israeli officials, such as President Isaac Herzog and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as evidence of a potential genocidal intent. The article concludes by examining the ICJ's past rulings, suggesting the court may need to revise its jurisprudence regarding inferring genocidal intent from conduct, particularly concerning cases involving forced displacement as a secondary objective alongside genocide. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, is cited as the source of this analysis.

Impact Statement: The article highlights the ongoing debate and legal complexities surrounding the classification of Israel's actions in Gaza, with significant implications for international law and future legal proceedings at the ICJ.