Israel's Defense Against Genocide Claims Hinges on Legal vs. Public Definitions

The dominant discourse in Israel, both public and academic, frames accusations of genocide in Gaza as a political tool aimed at delegitimizing the state's existence. Even within the Israeli mainstream, which acknowledges the horrific events in Gaza and the need for moral accountability, there is strong resistance to the term "genocide." This perspective views the label as transforming a complex military conflict into a total indictment, potentially leading to Israel's international isolation. This defensive stance, characterized by a sharp separation between the formal legal definition of genocide and its public perception, was also evident in Israel's reaction to the documentary "Nezah." Legally, the focus is almost exclusively on proving explicit "intent to destroy," detached from the outcome or victim count. Publicly, however, genocide is perceived as reserved for extreme events like the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, creating an artificial barrier between the scale of destruction and the intent behind it.

The legal framework for genocide requires examining both destruction and intent. While Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, included the destruction of social and cultural foundations, the 1948 UN Genocide Convention narrowed the focus to physical or biological annihilation. However, the extent of physical and institutional destruction remains relevant. The concept of "domicide," the systematic destruction of homes and civilian infrastructure essential for survival, has emerged in international law. Reports indicate that 82% of structures in Gaza have been damaged, with 371,888 housing units destroyed or harmed. Furthermore, estimates suggest over 70,000 tons of explosives were used, exceeding the combined bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London in WWII.

Despite this devastation, much of it remains invisible to the Israeli public, partly due to media restrictions and limited reporting on the scale of destruction. Satellite imagery shows entire areas erased, replaced by empty spaces where homes and infrastructure once stood. The conflict has crippled collective life, destroying or severely damaging all 12 universities, paralyzing education for over 90,000 students, and obliterating schools, archives, cultural centers, water facilities, bakeries, and hospitals. This destruction undermines higher education, institutional memory, and basic living conditions.

This difficulty in confronting the reality in Gaza is partly rooted in a political culture that has long separated Israel's democratic image from the reality of occupation and discrimination in the territories since 1967, creating a "gated democracy." This separation allowed Israelis to maintain a democratic self-image without grappling with the contradiction between democracy within Israel and the system of occupation. This political pattern, amplified by governments, particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who have utilized fear and demonization, hinders confronting the destruction in Gaza. While a smaller segment of Israeli society recognizes Palestinians' rights, the dominant narrative deflects attention from Israel's actions in Gaza to a sense of victimhood, framing accusations as an attack on the state and neutralizing substantive discussion about the destruction itself. The core question is not whether Gaza was destroyed, it was, but what this destruction, combined with evidence of intent, reveals about the war's nature.