The term “genocide,” like “racism,” is thrown around all too loosely these days. The definition often seems to depend on its user’s biases or design.

The internationally agreed upon definition, as set forth in the UN’s Genocide Convention of 1948, reads “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The most frequent use of the word these days is aimed at the Israeli devastation inflicted on Gaza. Israel, its accusers insist, is committing genocide against the Gazans, if not against the Palestinians generally.

Recently an opinion came down from a fairly authoritative source: Boston University School of Law’s International Human Rights Clinic. The opinion was part of a report from the University Network for Human Rights (UNHR), a consortium of human rights centres at colleges around the world.

The report concludes: “Israel has committed genocidal acts, namely killing, seriously harming, and inflicting conditions of life calculated, and intended to, bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.” It goes on to say, “After reviewing the facts established by independent human rights monitors, journalists, and United Nations agencies, we conclude that Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate the Genocide Convention.” Not much doubt, it seems, in the minds of these academics.

The UNHR emphasizes that it does not excuse the atrocities committed by Hamas in October in Israel but, according to spokesperson Susan Akram, “Self-defence is not an excuse to commit genocide. Self-defense must conform to international humanitarian law, which requires an armed force to meet the criteria of necessity, proportionality, and distinction. Israel’s actions fail the tests of humanitarian law.”

The report would seem to corroborate the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh have also been indicted. (Haniyeh was assassinated by Israel in July.)

The accusations of genocide against Israel have been challenged by her friends. For example, U.S. President Biden has stated categorically, “What’s happening in Gaza is not genocide. We reject that.” Of course, if Israel were guilty of genocide, the question would arise, are the Americans complicit? They are, after all, Israel’s military enablers. Canada announced earlier this year that it would not authorize new export permits for weapons to Israel.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that the victims of the world’s worst genocide, a people traditionally at the forefront of human rights, would themselves commit a genocide. At least not intentionally, and the Genocide Convention requires intent.

And yet, the horror they have wreaked on the Gazans has gone far beyond bringing Hamas to heel. It suggests at least collective punishment if not vengeance. Passions escaping the leash of conscience are as capable as intention of precipitating what is genocide in all but name.

In any case, I’ll leave the accusations of genocide to others, but I would at least like to see Benjamin Netanyahu in the dock at the International Criminal Court.