The word has become ubiquitous in mainstream media reporting, on university campuses, at anti-Israel demonstrations and in countless United Nations statements. It is a word chosen deliberately because genocide is not simply a war crime. It is the deliberate attempt to destroy a people because of who they are.
Think Auschwitz. Rwanda. Cambodia.
But what happens when the evidence refuses to cooperate?
In a remarkable development, Hamas's own casualty figures have exposed how misleading much of the media narrative surrounding the Gaza war has been. According to an analysis by HonestReporting, the latest figures released by Hamas directly contradict claims that women and children make up the majority of those killed in the conflict – a statistic endlessly repeated by major media organisations around the world. (HonestReporting)
The uncomfortable truth is that if Israel had genuinely intended to commit genocide against Palestinians, it has been spectacularly incompetent at doing so.
After nearly three years of war:
Gaza's population has continued to grow.
Israel has facilitated the delivery of millions of tonnes of humanitarian aid despite Hamas routinely stealing and diverting it.
Israel has issued evacuation warnings unprecedented in modern warfare, including text messages, leaflets, phone calls and designated humanitarian corridors.
Civilian casualty ratios appear significantly lower than those seen in many recent urban conflicts.
Hamas deliberately embeds its military infrastructure among civilians, including hospitals, schools and residential buildings. (HonestReporting)
Contrast this with conflicts that received relatively little international outrage:
Syria's civil war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Iraq's urban battles against ISIS produced enormous civilian casualties.
Somalia, Sudan and Yemen have experienced humanitarian catastrophes of staggering proportions.
No worldwide protest movement accused the coalition forces fighting ISIS of genocide.
No university campuses were occupied demanding sanctions against Syria's Assad regime while he used chemical weapons against his own people.
The selective use of the word genocide tells us more about politics than it does about international law.
War is horrific. Civilians die in war, particularly when terrorists deliberately hide behind them. Every innocent life lost in Gaza is a tragedy. That should never be minimised.
But genocide requires intent.
The intent of Hamas on October 7 could hardly have been clearer. Its leaders openly call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews worldwide. The Hamas Charter leaves little doubt about its objectives.
Israel's stated objective, on the other hand, has been the destruction of Hamas as a military and governing organisation following the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. One can debate Israeli tactics and individual military decisions. Democracies should do precisely that. But disagreement over military operations is not evidence of genocide.
The media bears considerable responsibility for the casual misuse of language throughout this conflict. Repeating casualty figures without scrutiny and presenting Hamas-controlled statistics as objective fact has fuelled an extraordinary global campaign accusing the world's only Jewish state of perpetrating genocide.
Now Hamas's own numbers are undermining that narrative.
Perhaps it is time for journalists to ask themselves an uncomfortable question.
If the facts do not support the genocide claim, why were they so willing to believe it in the first place?
Words matter. Especially words as serious as genocide. They should be reserved for actual genocides, not weaponised as political slogans.
The truth matters too. Even when it contradicts a fashionable narrative.
Source: HonestReporting – "What Hamas' Own Casualty Figures Reveal Is Not the War the Media Described." (HonestReporting)
