Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined the term Genocide in 1944 to define a crime that he had observed repeatedly throughout history, but that lacked precise legal recognition. In Axis Rule In Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, Lemkin defines genocide as “the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group,” emphasizing that such destruction involves “a coordinated plan of different actions […] with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” This foundational concept and analysis we poignant factors that significantly shaped the 1948 Genocide Convention, which determined genocide as an international crime “committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part.” Furthermore, Lemkin’s advocacy influenced international humanitarian law, specifically the 1949 Geneva Conventions; this formalized protections for individuals in times of war, and explicitly prohibited acts such as civilian targeting, murder, torture, and humiliating treatment.
Defining Genocide, A seemingly Contentious Issue
Raphael Lemkin’s seminal work in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, and the subsequent codification of genocide, represented monumental advancements in protecting vulnerable populations. However, the ongoing indiscriminate violence committed in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) – widely characterized by experts, including the United Nations (UN), Amnesty International and International Court of Justice (ICJ) representatives, as genocide – highlights a troubling disconnect. This disparity not only raises questions about the international legal response, it also signals a shift in the societal understanding of genocide, where geopolitical influence impacts the acknowledgement and response to such atrocities.
As of November 22nd, 2024, the Gaza Health Ministry has reported a catastrophic death toll exceeding 44,000 people, with 90 per cent of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents displaced. Among the casualties, close to 70 per cent are women and children. A Lancet report, published in July 2024, highlighted the scale of this devastation, citing that “indirect deaths range from three to fifteen times the number of direct deaths,” as collapsing infrastructure, medical systems, and access to basic necessities impact the ability to accurately assess the rising death toll. By applying an estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death, it is not implausible to hypothesize that over 180,000 Palestinian lives have been lost.
In January 2024, the ICJ ruled that Israel was depriving Palestinians in Gaza access to food, water, fuel and medical care, resulting inJudge Xue warning that because of “the Israeli military actions, the very existence of the Palestinian people in Gaza is at stake.” In its conclusion, the ICJ determined that a breach of the Genocide Convention in Gaza was “plausible,” thus ordering Israel to take immediate measures to uphold the Genocide Convention. Similarly, in November 2024, a UN report categorized the IDF’s actions as “intentionally causing death, starvation and serious injury, using starvation as a method of war and inflicting collective punishment on the Palestinian population.” The report condemned the deliberate targeting of essential services, and declared Israel’s actions in Gaza as “consistent with the characteristics of genocide.” These findings, drawn from internationally respected institutions, leave little room for ambiguity: the ongoing devastation in Gaza reflects a systemic dismantling of a population’s ability to survive. As the reports collectively emphasize, the acts committed by Israel against Gaza’s civilian population go beyond the scope of conventional warfare, and embody patterns consistent with Lemkin’s definition of genocide. However, despite these legal assessments, the ongoing political support for Israel from international actors demonstrates a shift in how genocide is understood in contemporary politics. This comes to complicate the application of international law, and undermines the protective goals set forth by Lemkin.
The Israeli government and its allies, including the United States, have consistently denied any genocidal intent, instead framing the violence in Gaza as an act of self-defense necessary to uphold the state of Israel. Civilian casualties, they argue, are an unfortunate but inevitable result of warfare. However, intent – central to the definitions of genocide under both Lemkin’s work and international law – must be examined beyond these denials. Raphael Lemkin explicitly emphasized that genocidal intent is not limited to mass killings, but encompasses a range of different actions aimed at destroying the political, social, cultural, and economic foundations of a group. Furthermore, his work emphasized genocide as a systemic policy, requiring “the participation of individuals across many levels of society, from government officials to everyday citizens.”
In Gaza, the structured targeting of essential infrastructure, deliberate deprivation of necessities, and the stated objectives of prominent Israeli officials, reflect a broader policy that aims to dismantle the Palestinian people’s ability to survive. In October 2023, former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege on the Gaza Strip,” justifying the implications by declaring that Israel is “fighting human animals.” This statement not only dehumanized Palestinians, but further incited the collective punishment of the Gazan population. Gallant’s statements are remarkably similar to those made by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who claimed that “it’s an entire nation out there that is responsible.” Both Gallant and Herzog’s statements are clear and undeterred. This rhetoric is further reinforced by the views expressed at Nachala Organization’s conference in October 2024, attended by numerous Israeli government officials and approved by the Israeli military. At the conference, Israeli citizens openly discussed plans to resettle Gaza, with prominent leader Daniela Weiss claiming that the “Arabs will disappear from Gaza.” The actions and discourse surrounding the violence in Gaza, as well as the fate of the Palestinian nationhood, reveal a pattern consistent with Lemkin’s understanding of genocidal intent, where the systematic dismantling and discussion of a group’s capacity to exist – through both direct and indirect actions – constitute a deliberate plan of annihilation.
Worrying International Responses
The international community’s response to the violence in Gaza represents a troubling shift in how genocide is understood and addressed. While ICJ and UN reports have attributed the legal definition of genocide to the ongoing crisis in Gaza, the political landscape complicates any meaningful response. Under the Leahy Law, the United States Government must restrict assistance to foreign security forces when there is “credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.” Despite this legal framework, since October 2023, the U.S. has enacted legislation providing Israel with at least 12.5 billion dollars in direct military aid. This continued military assistance to a government implicated in actions widely characterized as genocide by international bodies reveals how geopolitical considerations, including strategic alliances, now supersede legal and moral imperatives.
Furthermore, in November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, charging them with crimes against humanity and war crimes, including “crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” Following the release of these warrants, many international leaders deemed the ICC’s ruling as outrageous, declaring that they will not comply.
The continued political, military, and economic support for Israel, particularly from powerful countries like the United States, underscores a growing disjunction between legal and social recognition. Once regarded as an atrocity to be universally condemned, genocide is now often seen through a political and subjective lens, where strategic interests override the legal and moral imperatives that were central to Lemkin’s vision.
Edited by Éva Leblanc
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by Wafa
