I’ve discussed the topic of Israel’s actions in Gaza (post October 7th) ad nauseam with various people – some online, some face to face; some strangers, some friends. I’ve always believed in the OHCHR report’s findings, corroborated with press releases by Doctors Without Borders and others; also see my post in September 2025 arguing that we do have objective reasons to believe that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. The conversations always turn into heated debates where my conversation partner speaks about widespread antisemitism, Israel’s survival, Nazis, the Holocaust, “Never Again”, Hamas and their unspeakable atrocities, Hezbollah, Iran, and so on. But those are all things I already agree with, and in my mind they are unrelated to the charge that Israel might be committing genocide in Gaza; if anything, the more people use the evils of Hamas and how it presents an existential threat to Israel as arguments in this conversation, the more they sounded to me like justification for genocide, rather than denial.
After a particularly heartfelt (albeit unfruitful) conversation with a friend, I decided to investigate the opposing worldview myself, without waiting anymore for someone else to change my mind for me. That turned out to be a worthwhile endeavor, and I wanted to share my findings.
In the discourse surrounding the war in Gaza, the term “genocide” sometimes becomes a signifier of moral outrage rather than a precise legal description. For an observer attempting to analyze the situation objectively, it is crucial to separate the outcome (mass death and devastation) from the mechanism (intent and strategy).
The argument that Israel is not committing genocide does not require denying the horror of the war, nor does it require absolving Israel of war crimes. Instead, it relies on examining the military logic, internal political friction, and the strategic constraints of the state. When we apply Occam’s Razor—the principle that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one—the evidence points not to a secret, unified conspiracy of extermination, but to a messy, ruthlessly indifferent campaign of regime change.
Here’s the central question I started from: given Israel’s vehement denial, would there be any difference in Israel’s behavior from the one we observe if they were in fact executing a secret, systematic plan to exterminate the Palestinian population in Gaza?
Genocide, by definition, requires a “unity of purpose.” It is a massive state undertaking that demands the coordination of the military, the judiciary, and the political leadership toward a single, terminal goal: the biological destruction of a group.
The current reality of the Israeli state is the exact opposite of this unity. The government is not a monolith; it is a fractured entity effectively at war with itself.
In 2024-2025, we saw the Defense Minister (Gallant) and the Prime Minister (Netanyahu) openly sabotaging each other. Thinking they were simultaneously coordinating a secret, perfect biological erasure plan requires suspension of disbelief. My critique here works along the lines of the “Moon Landing Hoax” fallacy: the more people required to keep a secret, the less likely the secret exists. The chaos we see is not a smokescreen; it is genuine strategic incompetence and internal conflict.
We must discard the common defense that ‘if Israel wanted them dead, they would be dead by now.’ This is a logical fallacy that presumes the only alternative to the current war is cartoonish, instant extermination. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinian population they’d be smart about it; they’d maintain plausible deniability; they would publicly claim “collateral victims” while in reality targeting and exterminating the highest possible number of people on the ground.
As such, the blunt form of that argument never really worked for me. However, even if we accept a scenario of diabolically cynical and “smart” extermination plan, we would still see signs of methodical, systematic targeting of civilians. And if the goal really was genocide, the military strategy would prioritize static clustering: trapping civilians in “kill boxes” to maximize casualties. Instead, the IDF’s operational patterns—specifically the “Block Map” evacuation system and the construction of the Netzarim Corridor—indicate a different goal: terrain clearance.
Perhaps the strongest evidence against the “intent to destroy” is the management of biological threats. In a “smart” genocide, disease is the most efficient, plausibly deniable weapon. A regime intent on erasure would simply allow waterborne diseases and epidemics to run rampant.
Instead, in September 2024, the IDF paused active combat operations to facilitate a massive Polio vaccination campaign (“Tactical Humanitarian Pauses”), allowing the UN to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of Gazan children. This creates an insurmountable logical paradox for the genocide charge: a state does not pause its war to save the children of the group it intends to destroy. This single action proves that while some in Israel may be indifferent to civilian suffering, the state is not engaged in a policy seeking biological extinction.
Even if we suspect a cynically selfish motivation (protecting Israeli troops from infection), the outcome contradicts the definition of genocide. A genocidal force accepts the risk of blowback to ensure the enemy’s destruction (e.g. Nazis diverting trains from the front lines to the camps).
The restriction of food and water is the most damning accusation against Israel—and it is true. However, the data shows that aid flow is not a “flatline” (indicative of a policy of starvation) but a “sine wave” (indicative of a policy of coercion).
Finally, we must look at the survival instincts of the State of Israel. Israel lacks the strategic depth and industrial base to fight a multi-front war without US resupply; it’s not an autarky, it is deeply integrated into the Western economy and militarily dependent on the US supply chain for interceptors (Iron Dome) and precision munitions.
As such, avoiding the ‘Genocide’ label is not just a moral preference; it is a pragmatic logistical requirement for holding off Hezbollah and Iran, since a full-scale genocide would trigger the “Pariah Constraint.” It would force the US (bound by domestic laws like the Leahy Laws) to cut off critical military aid. Therefore, the “Realpolitik” of self-preservation dictates that Israel must stop short of genocide; the state’s survival depends on maintaining the legitimacy required to keep the supply lines open.
Say what you will about Israel leadership, but they are rational actors who know that a Nazi-style “Final Solution” would be a suicide pact for the state of Israel itself. They understand that crossing the threshold from ‘Urban War’ to ‘Undeniable Genocide’ forces the US administration’s hand. Even if executive waivers delayed the Leahy Laws, the domestic political cost in the US would make maintaining the ‘air bridge’ of munitions politically suicidal for any American president.
This might have been an overly cynical analysis, no matter where you stand on the topic; I’m sorry about that, my intent was not to be callous, but clear, efficient, and articulate in describing my logic, even in the most cynical of circumstances. There is no question that the tragedy in Gaza is immense, and that the sequence of events which led here has been tragic for all parties. The suffering and loss of life is staggering, and the accusations of war crimes—disproportionate force, negligence, collective punishment—are serious and require investigation.
However, War Crimes are not Genocide.
Genocide requires a specific, “special intent” to destroy a people. The evidence—internal government friction, vaccination campaigns, the fluctuation of aid, and the strategic logic of occupation—points away from that special intent. What we are witnessing is not the industrialised erasure of a people, but the horrific, messy, and often callous reality of high-intensity urban warfare waged by a fractured state fighting for survival.