Examining claims of genocide in Gaza: separating legal definitions from rhetoric.
Adam Starzynski
Sep 25, 2025 - 6:21 PM
Share
When the New York Times published Omar Barov’s op-ed accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, it reached far beyond activist circles. Barov is not a fringe blogger; he is an American-Israeli historian and professor of genocide studies. His piece appeared in one of the world’s most influential newspapers under the striking title: “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.”
Accusations of genocide are the gravest possible charge under international law. They cannot rest on slogans, emotional rhetoric, or selective quotes. To call a war “genocide” requires clear evidence, legal precision, and proof of intent. On all counts, Barov’s argument falls short.
What Genocide Really Means
The term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish jurist whose family perished in the Holocaust. He defined it as the deliberate destruction of a nation or ethnic group. International law, through the UN Genocide Convention, codifies this: genocide is any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
That definition sets a high bar. Death tolls, harsh rhetoric from leaders, or political anger are not enough. To accuse Israel of genocide, Barov would need to prove that Israel intends to eliminate the Palestinian people as such. His article does not come close.
The Flawed Claims
Barov leans on a few political statements. He cites Netanyahu’s vow that Hamas would “pay a heavy price” after October 7. But that statement targeted Hamas, a designated terror group, not the Palestinian population, and reflected the kind of response any leader might give after such a massacre.
He points to orders for civilians to evacuate Gaza before military operations. But this is the opposite of genocide. Israel routinely issues warnings, drops leaflets, sends texts, and opens evacuation corridors. Far from destruction, these are signs of compliance with international law.
He highlights Netanyahu’s reference to “remember Amalek,” a phrase rooted in Jewish historical consciousness. It is a metaphor for vigilance against existential threats, not a call to extermination. To treat it as evidence of genocide is misleading and culturally uninformed.
Barov cites Defense Minister Yoav Gallant calling Hamas fighters “human animals.” That statement was made in the aftermath of atrocities and targeted terrorists, not the Palestinian people. Emotional rhetoric after mass murder does not prove intent to destroy a nation.
Finally, he draws on inflammatory words from fringe politicians. These figures neither command the army nor set battlefield policy. Their rhetoric carries no legal weight. Treating it as proof of genocide confuses politics with military intent.
The Reality of War
Israel’s conduct in Gaza is tragic, but it does not meet the definition of genocide. Israel has gone to great lengths to warn civilians. Large amounts of aid - over 94,000 aid trucks and 1.8 million tons of supplies - have been delivered, and sick and wounded civilians have been evacuated, even while fighting continued.
Civilian deaths are real and painful, but many result from Hamas’s strategy of embedding itself in homes, schools, and hospitals. Citing figures from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health as proof of genocide conflates propaganda with evidence. Gaza’s population has even grown since the war began, which further undermines the claim.
If Barov’s standard were applied universally, almost every major war of the past century would count as genocide: the Korean War, the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the campaign against ISIS, where entire cities were destroyed. They were not classified as genocide because war, even brutal war, is not the same as intent to exterminate a people.
What the Law Demands
International law does not outlaw war. It regulates how wars are conducted. The key tests are distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality of force, and precautions to protect innocent life. On all three, Israel has demonstrated extensive efforts, often at tactical cost.
What is happening in Gaza is war. It is tragic, as all wars are. But tragedy is not genocide. Diluting the meaning of the word for political theater insults the victims of actual genocides, from the Holocaust to Rwanda.
Justice depends on clarity. Words matter. Genocide is the most serious crime under international law. Misusing it is not scholarship, it is propaganda.
