Israel Completely Misses the Point in the Genocide Debate
The war in Gaza was tragic. Period.
It produced enormous suffering, tens of thousands of civilian deaths, enormous destruction, massive displacement, and a humanitarian crisis that Israel, even if it is not solely responsible for it, has a moral responsibility to confront.
But there is another question that has dominated the international conversation: was it genocide? To put it bluntly: factually no, but it does not matter.
Genocide has a very clear definition: “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” According to any factual account, Israel did not commit genocide, but it does not matter.
Understanding the Genocide Debate Through Philosophy of Language
To try to answer why it does not matter, let’s look at the philosophy of language. Consider the difference between saying, “It is 10 degrees outside,” and saying, “It is too cold outside.”
The first is descriptive, a statement about a fact that can be objectively measured. The second may contain a factual component, but it also does something else: it expresses a normative judgment, not just about the current temperature, but about the desired temperature. It communicates how the speaker evaluates both current and desired reality.
Philosophy of language calls this kind of statement a speech act: phrases and sentences that are not merely describing the world, but that, by being spoken, attempt to do something in the world: change, promise, warn, demand, accuse.
And here is the trap: saying that “Israel committed genocide in Gaza” may look like a descriptive statement (like “it’s 10 degrees outside”), but it is actually a speech act, a normative statement (more like “it’s too cold outside”). It claims to describe reality, but in fact, it wants to change it.
Of course, people accusing Israel of genocide may sincerely believe that they are making a factual claim. They may point to the enormous number of Palestinian deaths, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, mass displacement, restrictions on aid, horrible statements by Israeli officials, and other evidence. Those facts deserve serious examination and should not be dismissed simply because they are uncomfortable.
However - and not in an attempt to sideline Israel’s mistakes and misconduct during the war - it is not genocide. Not just because the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not issued a final judgment on that question, but because “genocide” is a crime - a very serious crime - and, like every crime, it has a very clear definition: “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
According to any factual account, Israel - while making mistakes and misconduct - did not commit genocide. There was no intent to destroy the Palestinian people, as can be shown both by the intensive measures the IDF took to minimize civilian casualties (as even the movie NAZA recognizes) and by the number of casualties itself: 70,000 dead (around a third of them Hamas militants) is a lot, and each civilian death is a tragedy. This figure is 3% of Gaza’s population, and does not come any closer to any documented genocide in history.
Blaming Israel for genocide is not an attempt to describe reality. It places Israel within the worst moral categories in the international vocabulary. It does not merely claim to tell us what happened; it tells us how we should respond. It is not a statement about facts, but a statement about values.
When someone calls Israel’s conduct “genocide,” they are often making a moral argument, and this is where Israel’s response often falls short. Responding to a moral accusation exclusively with another list of facts misses the point of the conversation.
Obsessing Over the Three Ds
This is why arguing endlessly over whether every individual fact supports or contradicts the claim misses the larger conversation. When someone calls Israel’s conduct “genocide,” they are often making a moral argument: that Israel went too far and crossed a moral boundary; that Palestinian suffering is not merely tragic but morally intolerable; that Israel must change its behavior; and that the international community has obligations to ensure that.
And while some actors exploit those moral concerns for their own cynical intentions, for most people they are real. Even - and especially - when we reject the conclusion that the word genocide accurately describes the conflict.
This is where Israel’s response often falls short. Responding to a moral accusation exclusively with another list of facts - Hamas’s use of human shields, the number of humanitarian trucks Israel provided, warnings to civilians before strikes, the difficulties of urban warfare - answers the factual argument while completely missing the point of the conversation.
If Israel wants to persuade people who are horrified by what happened in Gaza, it cannot simply insist that they have misunderstood the numbers (data), remind people of the atrocities of October 7 (dates), or engage in factual debate about what constitutes genocide (definitions). It must address their moral concerns.
Facts matter. They matter enormously. But in the world we live in, facts do not settle moral questions. Israel and its allies are obsessed with the three Ds - data, dates, and definitions - which may be on our side, but the debate over Israel’s activities and moral standing exists in an entirely different realm.
If Israel wants to persuade people who are horrified by what happened in Gaza, it cannot simply insist that they have misunderstood the numbers (data), remind people of the atrocities of October 7 (dates), or engage in factual debate about what constitutes genocide (definitions). It must address their moral concerns - as long as they are genuine and not artificial.
Values and Vision Win Hearts and Minds
The challenge is not to win an argument over whether a particular word is technically correct. The challenge is to engage with the moral concern underneath the word.
Israel needs to speak not only about what it did, but about what it believes: how do we make sure that the IDF’s mistakes and misconducts, to the extent there were any, do not become the new norm? What did we learn from the war? What would we do differently? And what kind of future we want to build, alongside the Palestinians?
Because in the long run, it is much broader than simply surviving the ICJ case and winning the argument over the word genocide. It is about whether we can make the moral argument about who we are and what our role in the world is.
And that’s a much harder argument to make.
Comments