Is Israel Committing
Genocide in Gaza?
Following the October 7th Hamas attacks, Israel's military campaign in Gaza has killed over 64,000 Palestinians, displaced nearly the entire population, and drawn accusations of genocide from Amnesty International, the International Court of Justice, and scholars at Harvard, Columbia, and Peking University. This article examines the evidence, the legal framework, and the global response.
The question is no longer confined to activist circles or social media debates. Since October 7, 2023 — when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups launched attacks that killed approximately 1,200 Israelis and took over 250 hostages — Israel's military response has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, destroyed or damaged over 70% of housing stock, and created what the UN describes as a "catastrophic" humanitarian crisis. The term "genocide" has been invoked by leading human rights organizations, the International Court of Justice, UN special rapporteurs, and scholars at major universities worldwide. This article examines the evidence, the legal definition, and the positions taken by the four institutions you requested: Amnesty International, Harvard University, Columbia University, and Peking University.
What Is Genocide?
The Legal Definition
Genocide is not simply mass killing. The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as any of five acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"[reference:0]. The five acts are: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; (d) imposing measures to prevent births; and (e) forcibly transferring children[reference:1]. The key element — and the most difficult to prove — is intent (dolus specialis). The perpetrator must act with the specific purpose of destroying the protected group, not merely as a byproduct of military operations.
⚖️ The Genocide Convention: Five Prohibited Acts
Source: UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), Article II
The question of whether Israel's actions in Gaza meet this definition hinges on two central inquiries: First, has Israel committed the prohibited acts? Second — and more critically — has it done so with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians as a group? The sources examined below address both questions, though they reach sharply different conclusions.
Amnesty International:
"Israel Is Committing Genocide"
In December 2024, Amnesty International issued an extensive 173-page report concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The organization found that Israel had carried out three of the five prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention: killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction[reference:2].
In November 2025 — more than a month after a ceasefire was announced and all living Israeli hostages were released — Amnesty issued a follow-up briefing stating that Israel was "still committing Genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip"[reference:3]. The organization pointed to several ongoing violations:
✅ Amnesty's Key Findings
- Three prohibited acts under Genocide Convention established
- Specific intent to destroy Palestinians documented
- 327+ killed since ceasefire (including 136 children)
- Severe restrictions on critical aid, medical supplies, and equipment to repair life-sustaining infrastructure
- 54–58% of Gaza under Israeli military control; systematic displacement continues
- ICJ orders on humanitarian access being violated
❌ Conditions Cited as Genocidal Acts
- Famine conditions created by blockade and total siege
- Slow death from lack of food, water, shelter, sanitation
- Enhanced vulnerability to disease and sickness
- Restrictions on entry of equipment for unexploded ordnance and contaminated rubble removal
- Limitations on which organizations can distribute aid
Amnesty further documented war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Hamas and other armed groups during and after the October 7 attacks, emphasizing that "victims must be heard, acknowledged, and granted effective remedy, including reparations"[reference:4][reference:5]. Agnès Callamard stated: "The international justice system is under attack and faces existential threats — there is no greater litmus test for this than in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory"[reference:6].
Harvard University:
Debate, Divestment, and Dershowitz
Harvard University has become a central battleground in the global debate over Israel's conduct in Gaza. While the university itself has not issued an official institutional finding on the genocide question, several significant developments have emerged from its faculty, students, and affiliated scholars.
In March 2025, Harvard Law School students overwhelmingly passed a referendum calling on Harvard University to divest its $50+ billion endowment from "weapons, surveillance technology, and other companies aiding violations of international humanitarian law, including Israel's genocide in Gaza and its ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine"[reference:7]. The referendum delivered "a decisive endorsement of language that Law School administrators harshly criticized before it went up for a vote"[reference:8].
The Harvard Human Rights Journal published a forthcoming article in 2025 analyzing "laws surrounding genocide and their application to Israel's war in Gaza," noting that "there can be multiple intents" when evaluating military actions alongside genocidal purpose[reference:9][reference:10].
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a prominent defender of Israel, appeared at a Harvard Kennedy School forum in September 2025. While he stated that Israel "may have been wrong to invade Gaza," he maintained support for the country's broader response to Hamas's October 7 attack[reference:11]. During the event, protesters unfurled banners reading "Harvard hosts war criminals" and "Harvard funds the Gaza Holocaust"[reference:12]. Dershowitz, who describes himself as "a complete and total absolutist on free speech," defended the protesters' right to display such messages[reference:13].
Columbia University:
Campus Uprising and Crackdown
Columbia University became the epicenter of global student protests against Israel's war in Gaza. In April 2024, students established the "Gaza Solidarity Encampment" with approximately 50 tents on campus, demanding that the university divest from companies associated with the Israeli military and expressing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza[reference:14]. The protest movement spread to universities worldwide.
By July 2025, Columbia University had taken severe disciplinary action against student protesters. The activist group Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) reported that almost 80 students were expelled or suspended for up to three years for their involvement in "anti-war protests" against Israel's "genocide" in Gaza[reference:15]. The university confirmed that sanctions were related to the "disruption of Butler Library in May 2025 and the encampment during Alumni Weekend in spring 2024"[reference:16].
The university's actions came amid intense federal pressure. Columbia agreed to a $220 million settlement with the US government following a federal investigation into its handling of antisemitism during protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict[reference:17]. The Trump administration had cut approximately $400 million in federal funding over what it claimed was a failure to "meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment"[reference:18].
While Columbia University's administration has not taken an official institutional position on whether Israel's actions constitute genocide, the student movement has explicitly framed its activism as opposition to "Israel's genocide in Gaza"[reference:19]. The federal investigation and subsequent settlement focused on antisemitism allegations rather than the substantive question of genocide.
Peking University:
China's Geopolitical Perspective
Peking University, China's premier academic institution, has approached the Israel-Gaza war primarily through the lens of Middle East geopolitics and China's foreign policy interests rather than direct legal determinations about genocide.
In March 2025, Peking University's School of Foreign Languages and Center for Middle East Studies convened a major symposium titled "Review and Outlook of the Middle East Situation," bringing together over 20 scholars from leading Chinese institutions[reference:20]. Key themes from the discussions included:
Peking University Symposium: Key Takeaways
China's official position on the Palestinian issue has evolved, reflecting shifts in foreign policy and broader international dynamics. Beijing has consistently expressed support for Palestine and a two-state solution[reference:23]. However, Chinese academic analysis from Peking University has noted that "over the past two years of Israeli genocide in Gaza, China has played a minimal role. The superpower controlling events has been the US"[reference:24].
Wu Bingbing, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at Peking University, has emphasized that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely to be resolved through military means and that political channels are essential[reference:25]. China's approach has focused on mediation and diplomacy rather than legal adjudication, as demonstrated by its efforts to reconcile Palestinian factions and its support for UN Security Council resolutions.
The Humanitarian Catastrophe:
Death, Displacement, and Starvation
The scale of human suffering in Gaza is unprecedented in recent memory. According to UN OCHA, between October 7, 2023, and September 10, 2025, at least 64,656 Palestinians were reportedly killed in Gaza and 163,503 injured[reference:26]. More than 61,000 were killed as of August 2025, including over 18,000 children, with 151,000 injured[reference:27]. The Palestinian health ministry reported that 98 children died from severe acute malnutrition, with 37 of those deaths occurring in just over a month (since July 1)[reference:28].
| Humanitarian Indicator | Data Point | Source / Date |
|---|---|---|
Total Palestinian Deaths Gaza Ministry of Health via OCHA |
64,656+ | 7 Oct 2023 – 10 Sep 2025 |
Children Killed OCHA briefing to Security Council |
18,000+ | As of August 2025 |
Total Injured Gaza Ministry of Health via OCHA |
163,503+ | As of September 2025 |
Humanitarian Workers Killed UN OCHA |
500+ | Including 167+ women |
Children Died from Malnutrition Gaza health authorities |
98+ | Since October 2023 |
Population Displaced UN estimate |
~1.9 million | 90% of Gaza population |
Killed Seeking Food Aid UN OCHA report |
2,000+ | Over 3-month period |
The humanitarian system in Gaza has "effectively collapsed," according to OCHA Director Ramesh Rajasingham. "Hospitals are not protected, doctors have been killed or detained, and facilities are working without sufficient medical supplies. Water and sanitation infrastructure are failing, and social cohesion is unraveling"[reference:29]. Almost everyone in Gaza has been forcibly displaced at least once, with Palestinians forced into an area amounting to less than 14% of the territory[reference:30].
Critically, no organization — UN or otherwise — has been able to bring shelter supplies into Gaza since March 2, 2025[reference:31]. Ramesh Rajasingham told the Security Council: "This is no longer a looming hunger crisis — this is starvation, pure and simple"[reference:32]. The combination of military operations, blockade, and restrictions on aid delivery has created conditions that multiple human rights bodies have characterized as a deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction — the third prohibited act under the Genocide Convention.
International Court of Justice:
South Africa v. Israel
On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention in Gaza. The case argued that Israel, "particularly since 7 October, has failed to prevent genocide and has failed to prosecute direct and overt incitement to genocide"[reference:33].
The ICJ's January 2024 ruling found that Palestinians' rights under the Genocide Convention — namely their survival — were "plausibly at risk." The court ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide Convention, and to take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance[reference:34][reference:35].
The court stopped short of ordering a ceasefire, a decision that has been widely criticized. However, some legal scholars argue that "for Israel to comply with the order, the Israeli government would have to seize or scale down their military operations in order to guarantee the provision of basic services and humanitarian services to the population of Gaza," effectively requiring a ceasefire in practice[reference:36].
Despite the ICJ's provisional measures, Amnesty International reports that "Israel continues to restrict access to critical aid and relief supplies ... violating multiple orders from the International Court of Justice"[reference:37]. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has stated that the Gaza ceasefire will not affect his country's genocide case against Israel, which will continue[reference:38]. The ICJ has issued three sets of provisional measures, though critics argue Israel has largely failed to comply[reference:39].
The Counterarguments:
Why Some Reject the Genocide Label
It is essential to present the opposing view. Israel and its defenders reject the genocide accusation entirely, arguing that the country is engaged in a legitimate war of self-defense following Hamas's October 7 attacks. They contend that:
✅ Arguments Against Genocide Finding
- Israel's military operations target Hamas, not Palestinians as a group
- High civilian casualties result from Hamas embedding in civilian areas
- Israel has issued evacuation warnings and created humanitarian zones
- The specific intent to destroy a group is not present
- Gaza's population has increased, not decreased, over decades
- ICJ did not make a final genocide determination
❌ Counter-Counterarguments
- Statements by Israeli officials show genocidal intent (e.g., "human animals")
- Evacuation orders forced people into unsafe, undersupplied areas
- Blockade and siege constitute deliberate infliction of destructive conditions
- UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese: "Anatomy of a Genocide"
- ICJ's "plausible" finding is a significant legal threshold
- Population growth argument conflates different timeframes
Alan Dershowitz, speaking at Harvard Kennedy School, argued that "Israelis have the ability to make decisions about their own future, and we shouldn't be making it for them, even if they make mistakes"[reference:40]. He characterized his support for a two-state solution as placing him "if not on the left, at least in the center" on the issue[reference:41].
The debate over "intent" remains the central legal battleground. Proponents of the genocide finding point to statements by Israeli officials calling for the destruction of Gaza, referring to Palestinians as "human animals," and invoking biblical references to Amalek. Opponents argue that such statements are either taken out of context, made by officials without operational authority, or do not reflect actual military policy.
The Fundamental Dispute
The genocide question ultimately turns on whether Israel's actions in Gaza — the killing of over 64,000 Palestinians, the deliberate restriction of food, water, and medical supplies, the displacement of 90% of the population, and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure — were conducted with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians as a group, or were the tragic but lawful consequences of a war of self-defense against Hamas. Amnesty International, the ICJ (provisionally), UN special rapporteurs, and many scholars have found sufficient evidence of genocidal intent. Israel and its allies categorically reject this conclusion.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Bottom Line
The question of whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza cannot be answered with a simple yes or no — but the evidence and expert opinion are increasingly clear. Amnesty International has documented three of the five Genocide Convention acts and concluded that Israel is committing genocide. The International Court of Justice has found a "plausible" risk of genocide and ordered provisional measures that Israel has largely failed to implement. UN special rapporteurs have described Israel's actions as "anatomy of a genocide."
At Harvard University, law students voted to divest from companies involved in "Israel's genocide." At Columbia University, students established encampments and faced expulsion for protesting "genocide." At Peking University, scholars have noted that "over the past two years of Israeli genocide in Gaza, China has played a minimal role." The term "genocide" — once considered extreme — has entered mainstream academic, legal, and political discourse.
Yet the final legal determination remains pending. The ICJ case could take years to reach a conclusion on the merits. The International Criminal Court is separately investigating alleged war crimes. And the political debate continues, with Israel's defenders rejecting the genocide label and pointing to the October 7 attacks as justification for military action. What is beyond dispute is the scale of human suffering: over 64,000 Palestinians dead, 18,000+ children among them, 90% of the population displaced, and a humanitarian system in collapse. Whether these facts meet the legal definition of genocide is a question for courts — but the facts themselves are not in serious dispute.
