Why is genocide such a loaded word? And why are some so offended by the use of the term genocide? Why is the administration so adamant to call it a war against Hamas and not a Genocide?
Genocide is not merely rhetoric. It is a legal term with a set definition and legal consequences. Calling something a war crime, crime against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide isn’t simply choosing stronger and stronger synonyms. They are different legal categories with different elements.
The United States is one of 154 countries that are parties to the Genocide Convention. The U.S. ratified it in 1988. The Convention was adopted in 1948 in the aftermath of the Holocaust, in which Hitler’s Nazi Germany and its collaborators murdered approximately six million Jews during WW2. This treaty defined genocide and set a binding agreement for all party member states to prevent such atrocities going forward.
Article I says member nations have a duty to prevent and punish genocide. The ICJ has interpreted this to mean countries do not have to wait until genocide has already occurred or for a court to officially declare one. The duty to to prevent it can arise once a country knows, or should know, that there is a serious risk genocide may occur. This is central to the debate happening now
Article 2 defines genocide as
1. Killing members of the group.
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm.
3. Deliberately creating living conditions intended to bring about the group’s physical destruction.
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Article III then lists five things connected to genocide that are also punishable:
- genocide itself
- conspiracy to commit genocide
- direct and public incitement to genocide
- attempting genocide
- complicity in genocide
That last one, complicity, is especially important here. A country does not necessarily have to commit genocide itself to face international responsibility. Helping another state commit genocide can raise a separate question of complicity. That is different from the separate Article I duty to try to prevent genocide once a serious risk is known.
How it applies to what is happening in Gaza
In 2021 the UN launched the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, an investigation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and whether human rights violations were already occurring. This was not originally an investigation of genocide but an investigation of human rights violations and the underlying conflict. This began 2 years before the Oct 7th attack in 2023.
Later in 2023 South Africa brought its case to the ICJ (international court of Justice) formally accusing Israel of violating the genocide convention (South Africa vs Israel) The ICJ is different from the ICC (international criminal court) The ICC holds individuals criminally accountable, whereas the ICJ hold nation states accountable. The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant after finding reasonable grounds to believe they bear criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. They may one day have to independently answer for their conduct before ICC in The Hague. That different thought than holding the nation of Israel accountable.
By September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory conducted a detailed genocide analysis and concluded that Israeli authorities and security forces had committed four of the five genocidal acts in the Convention: killing, serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately imposing destructive conditions of life, and measures intended to prevent births. AND that they did so with intent. This is the part that matters. Committing one of those five acts, even on a horrific scale, does not automatically make something genocide. Genocide requires the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the protected group. Proving that intent is often the hardest part. The Commission concluded that the required intent was present but Israel rejects that conclusion.
This commission though is separate from the South Africa vs Israel case and doesn’t itself constitute a formal ruling from the ICJ on whether Israel, as a state, is responsible for genocide.
Israel contested these finding from the commission in their response.
South Africa now has until Nov 2027 to respond. Israels rejoinder would be due May 2029. This makes a formal ruling on the merits unlikely to occur before 2030.
The US also took the stance in support of Israel. In March 2026, the United States intervened under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute. That procedure allows another country that is party to the Convention to give the Court its interpretation of the treaty. The U.S. rejected the genocide allegation and argued for a strict interpretation of the Convention’s specific-intent requirement
The intent is the biggest issue under debate. ICJ has never found a state responsible for genocide specifically due to this clause. The ICJ has only previously found that genocide occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995. However, it did not find Serbia itself responsible for committing that genocide because the perpetrators’ actions were not legally attributable to Serbia. It also did not find Serbia complicit in the genocide. It did, however, find that Serbia violated its separate obligation to prevent genocide. This demonstrates why committing genocide, complicity in genocide, and failing to prevent genocide are legally distinct questions..
If Israel were ultimately to become the first state the ICJ has held internationally responsible for committing genocide, it would have enormous political, legal and reputational consequences that would remove present uncertainty over whether Israel’s conduct legally constitutes genocide. For states continuing to provide military assistance, including the United States, that would sharply heighten the legal significance of their separate obligations to prevent genocide and not be complicit in it. It would not automatically establish that the United States itself was complicit. But this would put the US in a far more difficult position in justifying continued arms, military and weapons support of Israel going forward in the Gaza military campaign. What a final judgment would do is resolve the central legal question in the case. That is whether Israel itself violated the Genocide Convention. The ruling could have major consequences for how continued assistance is legally assessed
This matters because the United States and other States Parties would have to assess continued military assistance in light of their existing obligations under the Convention, alongside other applicable international and domestic laws governing arms transfers.
That could also have major security implications for Israel, which faces threats from Iran and Iran-backed armed groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, while remaining in conflict with Hamas in Gaza. Israel has a substantial domestic arms industry but still depends on imports for several key military capabilities. According to SIPRI, the United States accounted for 68% of Israel’s imports of major arms from 2021–2025, followed by Germany at 31%. SIPRI also notes that ALL of Israel’s active combat aircraft come from the United States.
That’s why the term is so hotly contested.
Not to mention that the genocide convention was originally established as a response to the atrocities that occurred during the holocaust so if Israel were to be the first nation state to actually be found internationally responsible of this, it would have major political and reputational consequences. That’s also why many feel that using the term genocide is inaccurate and offensive with the weight that words carries.
Hamas is designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. I don’t dispute that designation. But Hamas and Palestinian civilians are not interchangeable. Palestinian civilians remain entitled to the protections of international humanitarian and human-rights law, and supporting the rights and humanitarian protection of Palestinian civilians is not, by itself, support for Hamas.
The US has taken the stance that this is a war on Hamas and that civilian casualties are a part of that conflict not an intent to commit genocide. However, there are some estimates of over 70,000 Palestinian people having been killed and UNICEF estimates over 21,000 casualties were CHILDREN. When 1/3 of casualties are children, not militants, but children, it warrants a close examination of that nation states actions and whether any reasonable attempt is being made to prevent those casualties. When those independent investigations make a conclusion of genocide, every member state should take action to prevent in accordance with article 1.
Calling it a genocide when the UN and multiple independent and respected human right groups have already done investigations and came to same conclusion, is fair in my opinion. Genocide is not defined simply by how many people die or how horrific the conduct is. Legally, it requires at least one of the prohibited acts plus the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group. As such I personally feel the word is warranted based on the commissions findings. So despite how contested it is, it’s the word I chose to use and the stance I take.
So when I use the word genocide, I am not claiming that the ICJ has already ruled that Israel committed genocide. It hasn’t. I am saying that this terminology did not come from a TikTok video or a social-media slogan.
Under the current U.S.-Israel agreement, American taxpayers provide $3.8 billion in annual military assistance and missile-defense funding, about $10.4 million every day. Since October 7, 2023, hundreds of U.S. transport aircraft and ships have carried tens of thousands of tons of military equipment to Israel.
And that support continues. On September 15, 2026, the Associated Press reported that the administration is preparing another $2.8 billion weapons package containing 40,000 2,000-pound bombs. Most of that proposed purchase would be financed through U.S. Foreign Military Financing: taxpayer dollars provided to Israel to purchase weapons.
That distinction matters. These are not simply weapons Israel is buying independently from the United States. The United States is simultaneously Israel’s arms supplier and a major source of the financing used to purchase those arms. That is why I feel it’s important for Americans, actors, singers and those with a platform to not only to understand this but to speak out publicly against it. Its our tax dollars funding these atrocities and we have the power to put pressure on our own administration to stop supplying these weapons.
I have always been inspired by people who speak out against what they believe is injustice, especially when doing so carries a personal cost. I choose to do the same. I respect Macklemore for using his platform to express his opinions on this issue, in a long history of artists using their work and public platforms to ring awareness to political and humanitarian causes like John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger, and Joan Baez.