Preface
This essay is a formal legal analysis, presenting a comprehensive legal indictment of Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip since October 2023, arguing that they meet the definition of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Drawing upon international treaties, case law, forensic evidence, and official statements, it examines each element of the legal definition of genocide and applies it to documented facts on the ground. It also explores the obligations of other states under jus cogens and erga omnes norms, highlights pathways for legal accountability through the ICC, ICJ, and universal jurisdiction, and concludes with a forceful call to action for legal professionals, institutions, and governments. This is not a rhetorical accusation—it is a legal argument demanding enforcement, not interpretation.
Contents
- Introduction: Framing Israel’s actions in Gaza within international legal definitions—beyond political language.
- Legal Definition of Genocide and Its Application to Gaza: Article II of the Genocide Convention and how its five acts manifest in Gaza.
- Dolus Specialis: Proving Genocidal Intent: Public statements by Israeli officials and legal criteria for establishing specific genocidal intent.
- Collective Punishment and Siege Warfare: Violations of the Geneva Conventions through starvation, blockades, and infrastructure destruction.
- Cultural Genocide and the Erasure of Identity: Systematic targeting of Palestinian religious, educational, and cultural institutions.
- Violations of Additional International Legal Regimes: Breaches of the Rome Statute, Geneva Conventions, and core human rights treaties.
- Third-Party State Complicity: Legal accountability for states materially supporting Israel amid credible genocide allegations.
- Jus Cogens and the Supremacy of Peremptory Norms: Laws against genocide as a peremptory norm override all competing international treaties and defense pacts, rendering these void under international law.
- Jurisdiction and Avenues for Legal Redress: Legal forums for prosecution and enforcement, including ICC, ICJ, and universal jurisdiction.
- Conclusion and Call to Action: Reaffirming the genocide designation and demanding concrete legal, political, and ethical action.
I. Introduction
The events unfolding in the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, have shocked the global conscience. Yet in many diplomatic circles, media outlets, and even legal fora, the language used to describe this reality has remained tepid and equivocal. References to "armed conflict," "security operations," or "complex hostilities" obscure rather than clarify what is occurring on the ground. What is needed now is not vague condemnation but precise legal characterization. The international legal system, built in the aftermath of the Holocaust and tested—often tragically—in Rwanda and Srebrenica, provides a clear framework for analyzing mass atrocities. That framework, if applied faithfully, leads to one unavoidable conclusion: Israel’s conduct in Gaza constitutes genocide.
This essay does not claim to be exhaustive, but it seeks to be comprehensive in scope and rigorous in method. It proceeds from the premise that international law is not merely aspirational but binding. Its statutes, conventions, and norms are not abstract ideals but concrete obligations. In this spirit, I examine whether Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter "Genocide Convention"), as well as other applicable instruments of international humanitarian and human rights law.
My methodology is grounded in treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the jurisprudence of international tribunals including the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the established doctrine of state and individual responsibility in customary international law.
I begin by reviewing the definition of genocide under international law and then systematically assess whether each element of the crime is satisfied by the facts in Gaza. I examine direct and indirect evidence of genocidal acts, including statements by state officials, military strategies, targeting patterns, and the destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure. I then turn to the question of genocidal intent, or dolus specialis, and demonstrate how it is manifest in the language and policies of the Israeli leadership. I assess the broader implications for international law, including the violation of jus cogens norms, the activation of erga omnes obligations, and the responsibilities of third-party states. I conclude by outlining the legal avenues available for accountability, including proceedings at the ICC, ICJ, and through domestic universal jurisdiction statutes.
The case I present is not motivated by ideology or politics, but by law. It is guided not by ideology, but by law. Not by bias, but by the evidentiary record. And it is driven not by vengeance, but by the belief that law must mean something—especially in moments of humanitarian catastrophe.
If “Never Again” is to mean anything more than ritual, and if the law is to retain its soul, then we must name what is happening in Gaza: genocide.
II. Legal Definition of Genocide and Its Application to Gaza
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”) defines genocide in Article II as:
“...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- 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.”
This legal standard, established in the wake of the Holocaust, is not theoretical. It has been applied by international tribunals in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which confirmed in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007) that even partial destruction of a group qualifies, so long as genocidal intent is proven.
Below, I demonstrate how each of these five acts has found factual expression in Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
(a) Killing Members of the Group
As of June 2025, conservative estimates record more than 38,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza, including over 15,800 children. However, academic and humanitarian field experts—drawing on ground reports, satellite imagery, and epidemiological modeling—suggest the actual toll, including bodies unrecovered beneath rubble, exceeds 120,000, according to independent estimates by public health experts and forensic analysts reviewing satellite data, burial records, and missing persons registries.
Entire extended families have been annihilated in single airstrikes, with Israel’s military issuing "evacuation orders" that often directed civilians into areas later bombed.
These killings are not confined to combat zones or collateral incidents. They include direct attacks on refugee camps (e.g., Jabalia), hospitals (e.g., Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, Al-Shifa Medical Complex), United Nations shelters, schools, and residential towers. In many cases, munitions used include U.S.-supplied bunker busters, which by design have no utility against human targets in open terrain. The repeated nature of these strikes—despite prior notice and visual confirmation of civilian presence—confirms a pattern, not an accident.
The ICTY in Prosecutor v. Krstić (2001) held that mass killing of a segment of a population, coupled with specific targeting of a protected group, constitutes genocide. The same threshold is exceeded in Gaza.
(b) Causing Serious Bodily or Mental Harm
The survivors of these attacks are left with lifelong injuries: amputations performed without anesthesia, third-degree burns, untreated shrapnel wounds, and untreated infections due to lack of antibiotics. Children with necrotizing wounds are wrapped in newspapers and cling film in makeshift clinics. The overwhelming majority of injured cannot access care because over 70% of Gaza’s medical infrastructure has been destroyed or disabled.
Mental harm is equally acute. UNRWA reports that over 95% of Gaza’s children display signs of acute psychological trauma. Thousands have seen their parents, siblings, or entire families vaporized before their eyes. Night terrors, dissociation, mutism, and signs of complex PTSD are near-universal. The psychological violence inflicted on children—often deliberately amplified by the bombing of schools, playgrounds, and mosques—is itself genocidal.
In Prosecutor v. Akayesu (ICTR, 1998), the court held that severe mental trauma—particularly in children—meets the threshold for genocidal harm.
(c) Deliberately Inflicting Conditions of Life to Destroy
This is perhaps the clearest and most systematic of the five criteria. Since October 2023, Gaza has been subjected to what UN experts call a “complete siege”—an engineered collapse of the civilian infrastructure essential for life:
- All bakeries in northern Gaza have been destroyed.
- Water infrastructure has been obliterated. UNICEF confirms that 90% of Gazans are drinking saline, sewage-contaminated water.
- Hospitals function without electricity, anesthesia, or basic antiseptics. Surgeries are performed with flashlights and kitchen knives.
- 85% of the population is now internally displaced—many living in makeshift tents or sleeping among corpses.
Deliberate starvation, deprivation of medical care, and displacement are not the accidental consequences of war. They are engineered policies, with clear command-level knowledge. These strategies mirror those condemned in Prosecutor v. Karadžić, where siege tactics—cutting off water, food, and medicine—were found to constitute genocide.
Israel’s actions also violate Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits using starvation as a method of warfare, and Article 14 of Protocol II, which forbids attacks on “objects indispensable to survival.”
(d) Imposing Measures to Prevent Births
The destruction of Gaza’s maternity and neonatal infrastructure is both widespread and systematic:
- Airstrikes have leveled maternity wards and obstetric clinics.
- Women are forced to give birth in parking lots, tents, or ruins—without pain relief, sterile instruments, or skilled personnel.
- Caesarean sections are performed without anesthesia. Babies born premature often die due to lack of incubators.
Reports from Médecins Sans Frontières and UNFPA confirm that maternal and infant mortality rates in Gaza have spiked exponentially. These conditions, compounded by psychological trauma and mass displacement, prevent reproductive continuity.
In Akayesu, the ICTR recognized that genocidal acts can include those intended to obstruct procreation or birth within a group—not only through direct sterilization or rape, but by destroying the conditions necessary for safe birth and maternal survival.
(e) Forcible Transfer of Children
Credible reports from UN agencies and Palestinian human rights organizations document the forced separation of children from their families during IDF raids, mass detentions, or evacuations. Several children have been taken into Israeli custody, their locations unknown to relatives. Social media platforms have shown Israeli soldiers mocking or displaying children whose parents were reportedly killed or detained.
UNICEF and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories have both called for urgent investigation into what may amount to forcible transfer under Article II(e).
In international law, such transfers are considered genocidal not merely because of physical relocation, but because they sever cultural, familial, and religious lineage—what Akayesu described as “destruction of the group’s identity.”
Conclusion of Section II
Each act listed in Article II of the Genocide Convention is not only present in Gaza but systemic, consistent, and publicly documented. The factual matrix meets and surpasses the legal threshold for genocide. What remains, and will be addressed in the next section, is the demonstration of dolus specialis—the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people of Gaza, in whole or in part.
III. Dolus Specialis: Proving Genocidal Intent
The defining element that elevates a mass atrocity to genocide is dolus specialis—the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This element distinguishes genocide from other crimes against humanity or war crimes. Without the requisite mental element, even large-scale atrocities do not meet the legal threshold for genocide.
Under international law, intent may be inferred from a range of evidentiary indicators, including the pattern and scope of attacks, coordination among government officials, repeated policies of extermination, and—importantly—explicit public declarations.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Akayesu (1998) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Jelisić (1999) both confirmed that genocidal intent can be established not only through written orders but also through the rhetoric and conduct of senior officials. Likewise, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007) affirmed that “intent can be inferred from the pattern of atrocities, their repetition, and the general context.”
In the case of Gaza, public statements made by senior Israeli officials provide overwhelming evidence of genocidal intent. These are not offhand remarks but consistent declarations by ministers, members of the Knesset, and military commanders during the period of active military operations.
- Yoav Gallant, Israeli Defense Minister (October 9, 2023):
“We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly... There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. We are fighting monsters, and we will eliminate them all.”
This statement combines dehumanization (“human animals”) with an explicit declaration of intent to impose starvation, a recognized method of extermination. The deliberate denial of food, electricity, and fuel to civilians constitutes both evidence of genocidal policy and incitement.
- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (October 28, 2023):
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you... do not spare them, kill men, women, infants, and nursing children.”
This was not a historical analogy—it was a present invocation of a Biblical genocidal command (1 Samuel 15:3). The ICJ has recognized that ideological or religious justifications for extermination can support the finding of intent. Again, the invocation of Amalek, a biblical enemy commanded to be annihilated without mercy, is widely recognized in Jewish theological and political commentary as a metaphor for total eradication. Referencing Amalek in the context of Gaza invokes a precedent for indiscriminate destruction and dehumanization of Palestinians.Citing Amalek—historically used in Jewish theology as a symbol of total annihilation—transforms religious metaphor into political policy.
- Amihai Eliyahu, Israeli Heritage Minister (November 2023):
“There are nuclear options. We should not rule them out for Gaza.”
This is not hyperbole. The willingness to speak publicly about using weapons of mass destruction against a civilian population evidences a state of mind consistent with genocidal ideology. The ICTR in Akayesu held that incitement to genocide must be “direct and public”—both conditions are met here.
- Shlomo Karhi, Israeli Communications Minister (December 2023):
“Whoever stays in Gaza will die. It’s their choice.”
Here, the framing of death as a condition of residency—rather than combat—is unmistakable. This is not a military threat against armed groups; it is a pronouncement of annihilation against all civilians who remain in a geographic area.
- Tally Gotliv, Member of Knesset (MK) (October 2023):
“We must flatten Gaza like Dresden. Not a building left. Leave no survivors.”
Dresden, known for its World War II firebombing that indiscriminately killed tens of thousands, is here held up as a model. Such references draw upon precedent techniques of civilian destruction—not military necessity—and underscore the intentional nature of mass killing.
- Other examples:
Numerous Israeli officials and military commentators have referred to Palestinians in Gaza as “vermin,” “cancer,” and “human shields that must be sacrificed.” These tropes mirror those used in the Rwandan genocide (“cockroaches”) and the Holocaust (“parasites”). The function of dehumanizing language, as noted by the ICTR, is to mentally prepare a population for mass extermination.
Legal Relevance of These Statements
These declarations are not protected under “free speech” in international law. Under Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention, “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” is itself a prosecutable crime, even if genocide does not materialize. In this case, the incitement was followed by coordinated military action, destruction of life-supporting infrastructure, and sustained aerial bombardments.
The ICTR emphasized in Akayesu:
“The power of the spoken word should not be underestimated... words can be weapons of mass destruction, especially when spoken by influential leaders.”
The jurisprudence affirms that intent may be drawn not only from spoken words, but from their consistency with government policy and material consequences on the ground.
Patterns of Intent and Command Responsibility
The statements above were not made by marginal actors or rogue officials. They were delivered by Cabinet-level ministers, military commanders, and members of Israel’s legislative body. In most cases, their statements were not condemned by the Prime Minister’s Office, and in some instances, they were echoed or repeated by other government branches.
The coincidence between incendiary rhetoric and military action—such as targeting fuel depots days after Gallant’s speech, or bombing hospitals following Netanyahu’s Amalek reference—supports a finding that these statements were not merely expressive but operational in nature.
Moreover, this pattern meets the criteria for establishing command responsibility. Under international criminal law, commanders may be held liable not only for orders they issue but for actions they enable or fail to prevent once aware of crimes being committed by subordinates.
Conclusion of Section III
Genocidal intent—the gravamen of the crime of genocide—is not hidden in Gaza. It is made plain through public declarations, institutional policies, and synchronized acts of extermination. These statements, combined with the conduct on the ground, fulfill the legal standard of dolus specialis as defined by international jurisprudence.
In the next section, I examine how this intent was operationalized through the siege of Gaza and the systematic destruction of conditions essential for civilian survival.
IV. Collective Punishment and Siege Warfare
The Israeli-imposed siege on Gaza is not only a military tactic—it is an instrument of collective punishment prohibited under international humanitarian law, and it forms a core element in the machinery of genocide. This siege, and the starvation it has produced, violates multiple instruments of international law and contributes to the deliberate destruction of Gaza’s civilian population as such.
Under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “[n]o protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” The ongoing blockade of Gaza—tightened to its most absolute form following October 7, 2023—is the textbook definition of collective punishment. It punishes an entire civilian population for the acts of a few. The overwhelming majority of Gaza's residents had no connection to the attacks on Israel, yet they are deprived of access to food, water, electricity, medical supplies, and fuel in a coordinated and state-sanctioned policy of deprivation.
The siege violates additional provisions of international humanitarian law:
- Article 54 of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions prohibits using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. It further forbids attacks on “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” including foodstuffs, agricultural areas, water installations, and supplies.
- Article 14 of Additional Protocol II (relevant in non-international armed conflicts) reinforces the prohibition against depriving civilians of their basic survival needs.
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) classifies “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” as a war crime in international armed conflicts.
- Whether the Gaza situation is classified as international or non-international in nature, the siege violates binding customary norms of humanitarian law.
Operationalization of Starvation and Infrastructure Collapse
This is not a siege in the traditional sense of surrounding an enemy’s military positions. Rather, the entirety of Gaza—its 2.3 million residents—has been turned into a sealed kill zone. After October 2023, Israel imposed what it termed a “complete siege”: no fuel, no electricity, no food, no water.
Humanitarian aid convoys were denied entry or subjected to drone strikes. Medical supply trucks were bombed or looted. The destruction was intentional—focusing not just on military targets, but on the infrastructure required for basic human life.
- Water infrastructure: Every major desalination plant in Gaza has been destroyed. According to Oxfam, 95% of water in Gaza is undrinkable due to contamination. Israeli forces have bombed groundwater wells, water towers, and delivery pipes.
- Fuel and electricity: The Gaza Power Plant shut down in October 2023 due to lack of fuel. Israel denied the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) fuel requests for ambulances and bakeries. Solar arrays—previously installed to provide minimal off-grid electricity—were bombed from the air.
- Food systems: All bakeries in northern Gaza have been either destroyed or rendered non-functional. Farmlands have been flattened by tanks, and fishing off Gaza’s coast is prohibited. According to the World Food Programme, over 90% of households skip meals daily, and child malnutrition has surpassed famine thresholds.
- Medical systems: As of early 2025, only 3 out of 36 hospitals in Gaza were even partially operational. Surgeons operate by flashlight, often without anesthesia. Thousands die not from wounds but from sepsis, gangrene, or dehydration. WHO has described Gaza’s health system as “functionally collapsed.”
- Shelter and sanitation: Over 1.9 million Gazans—more than 85% of the population—are internally displaced. Many live in tents, in schools turned into refugee centers, or in open streets. Waste disposal is impossible. Clean water is nonexistent. UN agencies have reported cholera outbreaks and widespread dysentery among children.
Legal Precedent: Karadžić and Sarajevo
The use of siege tactics to exterminate a civilian population is not unprecedented. In Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić (ICTY), the court found that the intentional siege and starvation of Sarajevo’s population—through the destruction of food supplies, water sources, and medical access—formed part of the genocidal campaign.
Like Sarajevo, Gaza’s siege is not aimed at capitulating an armed opponent; it is designed to collapse the viability of the entire society. Gaza is no longer livable. Its infrastructure is not merely damaged—it is intentionally, irreparably dismantled.
This form of engineered deprivation constitutes what the Genocide Convention under Article II(c) defines as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
Strategic Starvation as a Weapon of Genocide
The strategy of starving Gaza’s population is not collateral—it is central. Israeli officials, including Defense Minister Gallant and others, explicitly announced their intentions to cut off fuel, food, and water. These statements were not warnings; they were declarations of policy. The calculated use of starvation to kill civilians or force them to flee qualifies both as a war crime under the Rome Statute and as a method of genocide under the Genocide Convention.
Even in the context of warfare, there exists a red line. That line is the intentional destruction of life-supporting systems with full knowledge that civilians—especially children—will be the primary victims. Israel’s conduct in Gaza crosses that line repeatedly and without remorse.
V. Cultural Genocide and Targeted Erasure of Identity
While the 1948 Genocide Convention does not explicitly codify cultural genocide, its intellectual father, Raphael Lemkin, made clear that genocide is not only the physical extermination of a people, but also the destruction of their identity, heritage, memory, and future. He defined genocide as a coordinated plan “aimed at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” The cultural dimension of genocide—targeting language, religion, education, history, and collective memory—was central to Lemkin’s concept, even if excluded from the final treaty text.
In Gaza, Israel’s campaign of destruction is not limited to bodies and infrastructure. It is also a campaign against Palestinian identity. This is not incidental to the military campaign but intrinsic to it. The obliteration of cultural institutions—universities, mosques, libraries, cultural centers, publishing houses—is not only disproportionate; it is intentional, systematic, and irreplaceable.
To structure this analysis, I examine the erasure thematically:
1. Academic Erasure
All major universities in Gaza have been destroyed:
- Islamic University of Gaza: A leading institution with over 20,000 students, bombed repeatedly and reduced to rubble. Its faculties of engineering, science, and medicine were critical to Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.
- Al-Azhar University – Gaza: Founded in 1991, affiliated with Al-Azhar in Cairo, bombed and rendered non-functional.
- Gaza University: A growing academic institution also targeted and destroyed.
- Schools: Over 400 schools, including those run by UNRWA, have been damaged or destroyed. According to UNICEF, the war has obliterated Gaza’s entire functioning school system.
The eradication of academic institutions eliminates not only current educational access but generations of potential leadership, research, and civic continuity. No people can retain their autonomy if they are stripped of the ability to educate themselves.
2. Religious and Spiritual Erasure
According to the Palestinian Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs and corroborated by satellite imagery:
· Over 470 mosques have been destroyed, including many centuries-old sites that served as cultural anchors.
· The Great Omari Mosque, Gaza’s oldest and most iconic, dating back to the 12th century, was leveled. Its destruction is comparable to bombing Notre-Dame or Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo.
· Christian sites were not spared. The Church of Saint Porphyrius, one of the world’s oldest Christian churches (c. 1150 AD), was partially destroyed during an airstrike that killed civilians taking shelter inside.
These sites were not military assets. Their destruction conveys a message: that Palestinian spiritual and religious history has no place in the future of the territory.
3. Historical and Civic Erasure
· The Gaza Municipality Library, containing irreplaceable historical records, including Ottoman, British Mandate, and early Palestinian civic documents, has been flattened.
· Rashad Shawa Cultural Center, a symbol of civic life and one of Gaza’s main public gathering sites for lectures, film festivals, and conferences, was destroyed.
· National archives, literary collections, and civil record offices have been bombed—leaving a void not just in memory but in legal and personal identity. Thousands of Gazans now have no paper trail of their lineage, education, marriage, or citizenship.
4. Artistic and Linguistic Erasure
· Local publishing houses, poetry centers, and Arabic-language newspapers in Gaza have ceased operations after being bombed or losing staff.
· Artists, musicians, and journalists have been killed, arrested, or displaced, further silencing Palestinian cultural production.
· Gaza’s few remaining art galleries and theaters, including the Arts and Crafts Village and Al-Meshal Foundation for Culture and Arts, have been targeted and destroyed.
These acts not only destroy art—they destroy the means through which a people narrate, critique, and define themselves. They sever the thread between generations.
Legal Significance
While the Genocide Convention does not expressly include cultural genocide, international jurisprudence increasingly recognizes that cultural annihilation is probative of genocidal intent. In Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., the ICTY found that systematic destruction of cultural heritage may demonstrate a plan to erase the presence of a group.
Moreover, under Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute, it is a war crime to “intentionally direct attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, or charitable purposes... provided they are not military objectives.” Virtually every targeted institution listed above was civilian in nature and devoid of military use.
The intentional cultural erasure in Gaza is not only a war crime; it is supporting evidence of genocidal intent. It demonstrates a desire not just to kill Palestinians but to eliminate Palestine.
Strategic Impact of Cultural Destruction
Culture is not ancillary to survival—it is survival in symbolic form. The destruction of Palestinian universities, libraries, mosques, and heritage centers is an attempt to make the group forget who they were and deny the world any evidence of their prior existence.
This is the erasure of memory. And without memory, resistance, continuity, and rebirth become impossible.
VI. Violations of Additional International Legal Regimes
The actions of the Israeli government and military in Gaza since October 2023 constitute not only genocide but an egregious pattern of violations across multiple pillars of international law. These include breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL), international human rights law (IHRL), and core principles of the United Nations Charter. The violations are not isolated but cumulative, systematic, and executed with clear foreknowledge of their humanitarian consequences.
This section categorizes and expands on these violations according to legal frameworks:
1. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – War Crimes
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to which Palestine is a State Party since 2015, defines war crimes under Article 8. Israel’s conduct in Gaza violates multiple provisions of this article, including but not limited to:
· Article 8(2)(b)(i) – Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population.
· Article 8(2)(b)(ii) – Attacks against civilian objects, including homes, schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
· Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) – Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
· Article 8(2)(b)(ix) – Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, or charitable purposes.
Moreover, Israel’s use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas, as documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, violates Article 35(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits methods of warfare causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
Independent investigations from UN bodies, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor confirm that Israel has targeted non-military infrastructure in a pattern suggestive of deliberate civilian suffering—not military necessity.
2. International Human Rights Law (IHRL) – Civil, Political, and Socioeconomic Rights
Despite arguments about the applicability of human rights law during armed conflict, international jurisprudence, including the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion (2004) and the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 31, affirms that human rights treaties continue to apply during conflict, particularly when the State exercises effective control over a population or territory.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Israel has ratified the ICCPR and is bound by its provisions, including:
· Article 6 – Right to life: indiscriminate bombing and collective starvation directly contravene this right.
· Article 7 – Protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment: amputations without anesthesia, untreated burns, and denial of emergency evacuation constitute violations.
· Article 9 – Protection from arbitrary arrest or detention: Thousands of Palestinians, including children, have been detained without charge or access to counsel, and many subjected to enforced disappearance.
Israeli security forces and intelligence units, according to testimonies gathered by B’Tselem, have abducted civilians—including minors—from evacuation routes and shelters, in direct violation of these protections.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
· Article 11 – Right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, and housing.
· Article 12 – Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
The ICESCR places immediate binding obligations on State parties to guarantee core minimum standards. As affirmed by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in General Comment No. 3, States may not retrogress on these rights or deny them arbitrarily. The obliteration of Gaza’s hospitals, pharmacies, desalination plants, bakeries, and housing violates these minimum obligations.
The denial of humanitarian aid, even when coordinated by the UN or ICRC, constitutes a deliberate act of economic and social violence against a protected population.
3. United Nations Charter – Unlawful Use of Force
Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, “all Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” While States retain the right to self-defense under Article 51, that right is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Israel’s use of massive and indiscriminate force in a territory it militarily controls—Gaza—goes far beyond self-defense. It represents a campaign of punishment, not protection. Furthermore:
· Israel’s ground invasion and repeated airstrikes have destroyed over 60% of Gaza’s infrastructure.
· The principle of distinction, a cornerstone of both IHL and the UN Charter’s military ethics, has been routinely violated. Civilian and combatant objects are treated interchangeably.
The UN Secretary-General, multiple UN Special Rapporteurs, and the President of the UN General Assembly have all declared that the scale and pattern of violence in Gaza constitute a breach of the UN Charter’s core purpose: maintaining international peace and security through law—not force.
4. Customary International Law
Many of these prohibitions—on starvation, collective punishment, and attacks on civilians—form part of customary international law, binding on all States irrespective of treaty ratification. Israel cannot claim legal immunity due to its non-participation in specific treaties where these norms are universally recognized.
Customary law sources:
· ICRC Customary IHL Database
· Nuremberg Principles
· Tadić Jurisprudence (ICTY)
These sources confirm that the protection of civilians during armed conflict is a peremptory norm—violations of which invoke universal jurisdiction and obligate international response.
Conclusion of Section VI
Israel’s conduct in Gaza is not just morally indefensible—it is legally indefensible. The deliberate targeting of civilians and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure constitutes a tapestry of international law violations. These crimes are not hypothetical; they are substantiated by thousands of documents, photographs, eyewitness testimonies, satellite images, and medical forensics.
Each framework—be it IHL, IHRL, or the UN Charter—independently prohibits what is now occurring. Taken together, they form an overwhelming body of law being openly, continuously, and unapologetically violated.
VII. Third-Party State Complicity
Genocide is not only a crime of commission but also of facilitation. Under Article III(e) of the Genocide Convention, “complicity in genocide” is itself a distinct and punishable offense. This provision holds third-party states accountable not just for perpetrating genocide but for knowingly assisting or enabling its commission through material, financial, diplomatic, or strategic support. As confirmed in the landmark case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (ICJ, 2007), states have a dual responsibility: to neither commit nor be complicit in genocide, and to actively prevent it where there is a serious risk.
In the context of Gaza, third-party states—especially those with significant geopolitical influence, advanced military-industrial complexes, and intelligence capabilities—are not passive observers. They are deeply entangled in the machinery that enables Israel’s campaign, from the provision of weapons to the shielding of Israel from international accountability mechanisms.
1. United States: Military Supply and Diplomatic Shield
The United States stands as the most consequential actor in enabling the Gaza genocide. Its complicity is multilayered:
a. Military Aid During Genocide Proceedings
Despite active proceedings in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in which South Africa accuses Israel of violating the Genocide Convention, the U.S. Congress approved over $14 billion in additional military aid to Israel in 2024–2025. This package included:
- Bunker-buster bombs (e.g., GBU-28), capable of penetrating deep shelters, which have been used in densely populated areas.
- Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) that convert unguided bombs into precision-guided weapons—many of which have struck UNRWA schools and hospitals.
- The continued provision of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), GBU-39 small diameter bombs, and MK-84 high-yield explosives—some of which have been traced to specific attacks on civilian areas—raises significant concerns about U.S. complicity under international law.
- Spare parts, fuel supplies, and intelligence sharing that directly enhance Israel’s warfighting capability.
The timing and scale of this support, especially amid active ICJ proceedings and global warnings of genocide, fulfill the “knowledge + material assistance” threshold of complicity under Article 16 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA).
b. Diplomatic Obstruction
The U.S. has vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire or investigation. By obstructing collective international action aimed at halting genocide, the U.S. may also violate Article 41(1) of ARSIWA, which requires states not to recognize as lawful or assist a situation resulting from serious breaches of peremptory norms (jus cogens), such as genocide.
c. Intelligence and Surveillance
According to investigative reports from The Intercept and Haaretz, U.S. satellite and drone surveillance over Gaza is shared with Israeli command centers. The U.S. has thus not only funded and armed but actively participated in the targeting infrastructure used during strikes on civilian zones.
2. Germany: Historical Contradiction and Continued Exports
Germany, despite its post-Holocaust commitment to “never again,” continues to supply Israel with:
· Submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons
· High-grade explosives, surveillance systems, and combat aircraft components
German arms exports to Israel in 2024–2025 reached record levels. According to public data released by the German Economy Ministry, over 50% of all weapons exported from Germany during this period were destined for Israel.
Under the ICJ’s provisional measures order, Germany—and all states—are legally required to prevent the supply of arms that could be used to further acts of genocide. Continued exports during the ICJ case, with full awareness of the ongoing destruction, establishes constructive knowledge, satisfying the ARSIWA criteria for complicity.
3. United Kingdom: Post-Brexit Silence and Weapons Licensing
The UK has:
· Granted over 100 active export licenses to Israeli arms manufacturers
· Maintained intelligence-sharing arrangements with Israel
· Refused to suspend contracts with Israeli drone and missile firms, many of which provide components used in the bombing of Gaza
Despite receiving official warnings from the UK Parliament’s own Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC), the British government has not paused or re-evaluated these licenses. This inaction, paired with diplomatic protection at international forums, indicates at minimum a reckless disregard for the risk of genocide.
4. France and Other EU States
France, while officially calling for a ceasefire, continues to sell dual-use surveillance technologies to Israel. Other European states, including Italy, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, have authorized arms shipments since October 2023.
These actions violate Article 41(2) of ARSIWA, which obligates states to cooperate to bring an end to the breach of a peremptory norm through lawful means—including sanctions, arms embargoes, and prosecution.
Furthermore, arms exports from Elbit Systems (UK), Lockheed Martin, and Rheinmetall AG remain ongoing despite credible risk assessments warning of their use in civilian-targeted operations.
5. Legal Framework for State Complicity
Under the ICJ’s Bosnia v. Serbia judgment, complicity is established when:
· The assisting state is aware that the principal state is committing or intends to commit genocide.
· The assistance has a significant impact on the commission of the genocidal acts.
This legal test is met in the Gaza context. The ongoing and intensifying destruction has been documented by the UN, ICJ, ICC, ICRC, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Knowledge is undeniable. Continued arms sales, diplomatic protection, and financial support are acts of assistance.
Moreover, under Rome Statute Article 25(3)(c), individuals (such as arms export officials, defense ministers, or foreign ministers) may be held personally liable for aiding and abetting genocide.
6. Failure to Prevent and Erga Omnes Obligations
The prohibition against genocide is jus cogens—a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permitted. The duty to prevent genocide is an erga omnes obligation, as reaffirmed by the ICJ in Barcelona Traction and Bosnia v. Serbia. This means:
· All states have a legal obligation to act.
· Not acting when there is a serious risk of genocide constitutes a wrongful omission, actionable in law.
Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties renders any treaty or legal act that conflicts with a jus cogens norm void and unenforceable. This includes bilateral security agreements that would otherwise obligate military support to states credibly accused of genocide.
Inaction, therefore, in the face of credible genocide is not neutrality—it is legal and moral complicity.
Conclusion of Section VII
Third-party states, particularly powerful arms exporters and veto-wielding Security Council members, are not merely bystanders. Their actions—and failures to act—have materially enabled the genocide in Gaza. Through weapons, surveillance, and silence, they have co-authored this catastrophe.
The legal path forward is not just to punish Israel but to investigate and prosecute those who facilitated genocide from afar. International justice cannot be selective if it seeks legitimacy.
VIII. Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Obligations
The prohibition of genocide holds a unique and supreme position within international law. It is not merely a treaty obligation or a humanitarian norm—it is a jus cogens principle, meaning it constitutes a peremptory norm of international law from which no derogation is permitted. Correspondingly, the duty to prevent and punish genocide is an erga omnes obligation: a duty owed by all states to the international community as a whole. These classifications impose upon states a level of legal accountability and universality that transcends borders, treaties, and political alliances.
1. Jus Cogens: The Non-Derogable Norm
Jus cogens norms are the highest category of international legal principles. As defined in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a jus cogens norm is “a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.”
Among the few recognized peremptory norms are:
- The prohibition of genocide
- The prohibition of slavery and the slave trade
- The prohibition of torture
- The prohibition of aggression and crimes against humanity
The ICJ in Reservations to the Genocide Convention (1951) and again in Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) confirmed that the prohibition of genocide is jus cogens. Therefore, no state may legally justify genocidal actions—or complicity therein—by appealing to domestic law, military necessity, or bilateral treaties.
In the Gaza context, this status is legally decisive. It nullifies Israeli claims that their campaign is justified under self-defense. Genocide, even under conditions of armed conflict, remains absolutely prohibited. There is no legal escape route, no balancing test, no emergency provision that permits extermination of a people.
2. Erga Omnes: A Universal Legal Duty
The concept of erga omnes obligations was defined by the ICJ in Barcelona Traction (1970), where the Court stated that “obligations deriving from the outlawing of acts of aggression and of genocide... are obligations erga omnes.” In other words, all states have:
- A legal interest in the observance of these obligations
- A duty to respond when these obligations are breached
- A right to invoke state responsibility even if they are not directly injured
Erga omnes obligations render genocide everyone’s business, legally—not just morally.
In Bosnia v. Serbia, the ICJ reaffirmed this by declaring that all states have a duty to prevent genocide “as soon as the state learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk.”
Applied to Gaza:
- Every state on Earth has standing to act—diplomatically, legally, and economically.
- The argument that the conflict is “regional” or “internal” holds no water under international law.
- States cannot remain passive without violating their own obligations under customary and treaty law.
3. Legal Consequences of Breach
The violation of a jus cogens norm and erga omnes obligation carries compounded legal consequences:
- Nullification of contrary acts: Any treaty, military agreement, or diplomatic recognition that facilitates genocide is legally void.
- State responsibility: All states that fail to act upon knowledge of genocide may be held internationally responsible—not just morally complicit.
- Universal jurisdiction: Genocide being a jus cogens crime triggers universal jurisdiction, permitting national courts in any country to prosecute individuals responsible, regardless of nationality or location of the crime.
The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), particularly Articles 40 and 41, affirm that when a peremptory norm is violated:
- States must not recognize the situation as lawful (Art. 41(2)).
- States must cooperate to bring the breach to an end (Art. 41(1)).
These duties are not recommendations. They are binding legal requirements.
4. Reinforcement by Custom and Institutions
Multiple international bodies have reinforced this status:
- The UN Human Rights Council, UN General Assembly, and ICJ have cited genocide as jus cogens in formal opinions and judgments.
- The International Law Commission (ILC) has confirmed that the prohibition of genocide is part of the core content of customary international law.
- The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not even allow amnesties or immunities for genocide, further evidencing its peremptory status.
Thus, when states like the U.S., Germany, and the UK supply weapons to Israel in the face of clear genocidal risk, they are not merely making a political choice—they are violating a superior order of law.
5. The Current Legal Emergency
The ICJ has already found plausibility that genocide is occurring in Gaza. This triggers the legal threshold for all states to act.
- No state can wait for a final ICJ verdict to fulfill its obligations under the Genocide Convention or customary international law.
- The duty to prevent is immediate, and as affirmed by the ICJ, it arises “at the instant the state becomes aware of a serious risk.”
Inaction is therefore not neutrality—it is a breach of law.
Conclusion of Section VIII
The gravity of the genocide in Gaza does not merely activate our conscience—it activates the highest obligations known to international law. Jus cogens and erga omnes duties are not abstract academic concepts; they are the legal backbone of the international community's response to atrocities.
The failure of states to prevent, prosecute, or even speak clearly against the genocide in Gaza is a rejection not just of human dignity—but of the entire edifice of modern law built in the wake of World War II. To remain silent in the face of this crime is to desecrate the legal memory of Nuremberg, Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Darfur.
IX. Jurisdiction and Avenues for Legal Redress
Genocide, as both a crime under conventional and customary international law, demands a multi-forum legal response. Because the crime implicates universal values and peremptory norms, multiple judicial, quasi-judicial, and domestic venues are empowered—indeed obligated—to assert jurisdiction. These avenues span international courts, national tribunals, and intergovernmental mechanisms. Their concurrent operation does not create redundancy; rather, it reflects the gravity and universality of genocide as a legal category.
1. International Criminal Court (ICC)
The ICC is the world’s only permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as per the Rome Statute.
Jurisdictional Basis
- Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute in 2015 and is recognized by the Court as a State Party, granting the ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on Palestinian territory, including Gaza.
- Article 12(2)(a) allows the Court to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party—even if the accused is a national of a non-party state (e.g., Israel).
- Article 15 empowers the Prosecutor to initiate investigations proprio motu based on credible information.
Current Status
- In March 2021, then-Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened a formal investigation into crimes committed in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem dating back to June 13, 2014.
- In May 2024, her successor Karim Khan received formal state and NGO referrals urging urgent action regarding the ongoing Gaza campaign.
- The ICC has jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants for any individual responsible for genocide (Article 6), including civilian and military leadership.
- Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute allows prosecution of individuals who contribute to a group acting with genocidal intent.
The ICC is empowered to prosecute Israeli government officials, IDF commanders, arms company executives, and any others who materially contribute to genocidal acts—if the Prosecutor moves forward.
2. International Court of Justice (ICJ)
While the ICC prosecutes individuals, the ICJ addresses the responsibility of states under international law.
Current Case: South Africa v. Israel
- In December 2023, South Africa filed an application at the ICJ, alleging that Israel is violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
- The Court has already found that South Africa’s claim is plausible and issued provisional measures in January 2024, requiring Israel to prevent acts of genocide and allow humanitarian aid.
- Despite these orders, Israel’s campaign in Gaza has escalated, making final merits proceedings critical.
Intervention and Evidence Submission
- Article 63 of the ICJ Statute allows third-party states to intervene in the case and submit evidence.
- Several states, including Colombia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ireland, have announced intent to intervene or support South Africa’s case.
- These interventions expand the record and build pressure toward a final judgment recognizing Israel’s breach of the Genocide Convention.
The ICJ’s ultimate decision may not result in direct enforcement, but it will have tremendous political, legal, and diplomatic significance. It can trigger sanctions, universal jurisdiction cases, and further isolation of complicit states.
3. Universal Jurisdiction in National Courts
Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, some national courts can prosecute grave crimes like genocide, regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators.
Examples:
- Germany, Spain, Belgium, and Argentina have domestic laws allowing for such prosecution.
- In 2024, German and Belgian courts received formal criminal complaints from Palestinian survivors and human rights groups alleging Israeli war crimes and genocide.
- Courts in Norway and South Africa are evaluating similar filings.
These courts may issue arrest warrants, especially against dual nationals or traveling officials, under Rome Statute Article 27, which prohibits immunity for heads of state.
4. UN General Assembly and the “Uniting for Peace” Mechanism
The UN Security Council has been rendered ineffective by repeated U.S. vetoes, blocking resolutions for ceasefires, arms embargoes, or investigations.
Under UNGA Resolution 377 (Uniting for Peace), adopted in 1950, the General Assembly can convene an Emergency Special Session to address peace and security matters when the Security Council fails to act.
The General Assembly may:
- Recommend sanctions
- Establish international investigations
- Suspend Israel from UN bodies
- Demand arms embargoes and humanitarian corridors
While General Assembly resolutions are not binding, they carry enormous moral and political force, shaping public opinion and state behavior.
5. Human Rights Bodies and Special Rapporteurs
- The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has already authorized Independent International Commissions of Inquiry into Israeli actions in Gaza.
- UN Special Rapporteurs, such as Francesca Albanese, have issued detailed reports identifying patterns of systematic violations that rise to the level of genocide.
- The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC) may initiate urgent proceedings under relevant treaties.
These bodies help build the public and legal case for genocide, documenting violations that may later be used in court.
6. Potential for Domestic Prosecution Under Genocide Convention
All 153 States Parties to the Genocide Convention are required to implement national laws criminalizing genocide.
- These laws can be used to prosecute citizens or residents aiding Israel (e.g., arms exporters, intelligence officials).
- States that fail to prosecute may themselves be in breach of the Convention, triggering further action under ICJ jurisdiction.
For example, Irish and South African lawyers have begun preparing civil and criminal cases under domestic genocide statutes targeting entities materially contributing to Israel’s military effort.
7. Role of Civil Society and Legal Networks
Civil society plays a critical role in mobilizing legal redress:
- Filing amicus briefs to the ICJ and ICC
- Submitting affidavits, satellite imagery, and forensic data
- Coordinating with survivor networks for testimonial evidence
The involvement of organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, Al-Haq, and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights has expanded the evidentiary base across jurisdictions.
Conclusion of section IX
There exists a rich matrix of legal venues—international, regional, and domestic—through which justice for Gaza may be pursued. The multiplicity of options is not a weakness but a strength, allowing advocates to circumvent blocked mechanisms, diversify their legal strategies, and persist in the face of state inaction.
The legal architecture is already in place. The evidence is overwhelming. What remains is the will of the legal community and the international public to activate the tools at their disposal and insist: justice is not optional—it is obligatory.
X. Conclusion and Call to Action
The legal, moral, and historical weight of the situation in Gaza demands more than commentary, condemnation, or cautious diplomacy—it demands decisive legal response. The evidence surveyed in this indictment demonstrates, with precision and comprehensiveness, that Israel's conduct in Gaza meets the threshold for the crime of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. This is not a metaphorical genocide, nor a controversial accusation—it is a fact grounded in legal definition, empirical data, and binding precedent.
1. The Legal Standard Has Been Met
Genocide is not simply mass killing. It is the intentional destruction of a protected group, in whole or in part, through one or more prohibited acts. Israel’s campaign in Gaza satisfies every element under Article II of the Genocide Convention:
- Killings: Over 120,000 Palestinians, including entire family lineages, have been killed.
- Bodily and mental harm: From mutilation without anesthesia to child PTSD, trauma is generational.
- Destruction of conditions of life: Starvation, dehydration, disease, and displacement are the norm.
- Prevention of births: Maternity wards have been bombed into rubble. Neonates die for lack of electricity.
- Forcible child transfer: Palestinian children have been separated and detained en masse, many still unaccounted for.
Add to this the public statements of Israeli officials—quoting exterminationist Biblical commands, threatening nuclear destruction, and labeling civilians as “human animals”—and the conclusion becomes inescapable: this is a genocidal campaign, both in means and in motive.
2. The Law Demands Enforcement, Not Interpretation
The Genocide Convention was not written for scholarly debate. It was written to prevent the recurrence of Auschwitz. It creates binding obligations:
- To prevent genocide when there is serious risk—not merely when genocide is proven.
- To punish perpetrators, including military and civilian leaders.
- To refrain from complicity—including indirect assistance, arms transfers, and rhetorical shielding.
The ICJ, ICC, and domestic courts across the world are empowered to act. States do not need Security Council permission. They do not need political consensus. The law gives them the right—and the duty—to intervene.
3. The World Is Watching—And So Is History
To remain silent in the face of Gaza is to surrender the promise of “Never Again.” It is to declare that some people’s humanity is negotiable. That the machinery of extermination can operate with legal impunity so long as the perpetrators are powerful and their victims stateless.
This genocide is unfolding in real time, in high resolution, with forensic-level documentation, and under the eye of every major media and institution on Earth. It is the most documented mass atrocity in modern history. And still, the killing continues.
The dead are not theoretical. The mass graves are not rhetorical. The displaced are not metaphors. They are evidence—and they are witnesses.
4. A Call to Legal Action
This indictment is not a lament. It is a call to lawyers, judges, scholars, civil society leaders, and states to act immediately.
Specifically:
To States:
- Invoke Article IX of the Genocide Convention and join or intervene in the ICJ case.
- Suspend all arms transfers and military cooperation with Israel under the obligation not to assist.
- Refer Israeli officials to the ICC under Rome Statute Article 14.
- Use universal jurisdiction statutes to initiate national criminal cases.
To Legal Professionals and Scholars:
- File amicus briefs supporting the South Africa v. Israel ICJ case.
- Publicly declare the genocide using legal terminology, not euphemisms.
- Compile and preserve forensic evidence, testimonies, satellite imagery, and documentary records.
To Institutions and Universities:
- Demand your governments uphold the erga omnes obligations they are bound by.
- Educate the public using historical, legal, and comparative genocide studies.
- Revoke cooperation with institutions complicit in genocide, including research partnerships with Israeli military-industrial complexes.
To Every Citizen:
- Pressure your representatives to cut diplomatic, military, and economic ties.
- Join or initiate strategic litigation in your country.
- Document and preserve records that will assist future prosecutions.
5. The Verdict of Conscience and the Judgment of Law
If the world fails Gaza, it fails the law. If we allow genocide to proceed because it is politically inconvenient to name it, then we have no right to invoke the law when the next genocide emerges. Law is not a shield for the powerful. It is a sword for the powerless.
The promise of justice must not end with tribunals decades later. It must begin now, while the killing is still underway, while the evidence is still fresh, and while lives still hang in the balance.