It’s not genocide, stupid

The article argues that the term "genocide" is being misused in discussions about the conflict in Gaza, particularly by figures like Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Turkey, who have accused Israel of genocide. It emphasizes that genocide has a specific legal definition under international law, requiring "dolus specialis"—the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has set a high bar for proving this intent, as demonstrated in cases like Croatia v. Serbia, where even widespread harm did not establish genocide without proof of specific intent.

• The article highlights the irony of Turkey accusing Israel of genocide, given Turkey's rejection of the genocide designation for the Armenian massacres of 1915-1916, and its own foreign ministry stating, "Genocide is a clearly defined crime. Genocide is not a generic word to be used loosely to describe some grave atrocity."
• It notes that civilian deaths, destruction, displacement, or alleged war crimes, while serious, do not automatically constitute genocide without evidence of specific genocidal intent.
• The ICJ has not ruled that Israel committed genocide, only ordering provisional measures in South Africa's case.
• The author points out that analyses, such as those by John Spencer of West Point, which suggest Israel has adopted significant civilian-harm mitigation measures, receive less attention than the genocide accusations.