As claims of ‘genocide’ against Israel echo from protest lines to courtrooms, the legal reality tells a different story: intent matters, and misusing the term risks stripping it of meaning and obscuring the truth, says Sammy Stein

As the war in Gaza recedes from the headlines and discussion shifts from battlefield updates to the challenge of establishing a sustainable “state of not-war,” a new conflict has taken centre stage: whether Israel committed genocide. The power of this claim was evident in Birmingham before Aston Villa’s match against Maccabi Tel Aviv, where protesters insisted Israeli fans should be barred because “Israel committed genocide in Gaza,” and since most Israelis serve in the IDF, “genocidaires” should not be admitted. No further context or evidence was considered necessary.

Because this accusation is now repeated so freely, it is essential to examine it seriously. Did Israel commit genocide in Gaza?

The allegation not only misstates the legal reality but also dilutes the meaning of genocide itself. Under international law, genocide has a precise definition: the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It is not a catch-all term for high civilian casualties, devastating urban warfare or even catastrophic destruction. When the word is stretched to describe any brutal conflict, it loses moral clarity and legal force.

Read more:

Applying it to Gaza collapses the complexities of the war into a slogan and........

© Herald Scotland