A Textbook Case: The Gaza Genocide Lie and the Law it had to Rewrite
73 Pages Posted: 8 Oct 2026
Mark Goldfeder
National Jewish Advocacy Center
Date Written: October 07, 2026
Abstract
The accusation that Israel committed genocide in Gaza was made by people who knew the legal definition of genocide, knew the facts did not meet it, and used the word anyway. This Article proves that from their own documents. The charge was in print by October 13, 2023, two weeks before the ground campaign whose conduct it would later cite, and its authors had been discussing it, by their own account, before the war began. Its institutional sponsors had conceded the legal problem decades earlier, and when the International Court of Justice's intent standard stood in the way, Ireland, Belize, and Amnesty International asked the Court to change it. Reading the law of genocide as the drafters wrote it and the Court has applied it in Bosnia and Croatia, and reading the facts of the war from the primary record rather than from the Gaza Ministry of Health, the Article shows that the accusers' private assessment was correct: the charge fails on the prohibited acts and fails absolutely on the element that defines the crime, the specific intent to destroy a people as such. The drafters of the 1948 Convention rejected each of those moves by name, and the Article recovers their votes. It also shows that the one genocide in this record, the attack of October 7, 2023, meets every element of Article II on the perpetrators' own charter and their repeated promise to do it again. The practical stakes reach past Israel. A definition of genocide that dispenses with purpose and counts the casualties of urban warfare as proof of it would convict the coalition at Mosul and Raqqa, the Marines at Fallujah, and the United Nations in Korea, and the accusers do not apply it to any of them. The remedies the Article proposes require no new doctrine: the Court applying its own precedent, the institutions that publish genocide findings held to the standard they claim to use, and the money that funds them conditioned on it.
Keywords: Israel, genocide, Gaza, Genocide Convention, Hamas, October 7, specific intent, International Court of Justice, dolus specialis, South Africa v. Israel, genocidal intent, international humanitarian law, aw of armed conflict, urban warfare, human shields, Bosnia v. Serbia, Croatia v. Serbia, Raphael Lemkin, travaux préparatoires, Amnesty International, UN Commission of Inquiry, Francesca Albanese, casualty data, Gaza Ministry of Health, provisional measures, lawfare, antisemitism, Hamas Charter, 18 U.S.C. § 1091
License Information
The copyright holder has granted SSRN a license. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Declaration of Interest
The author is Chief Executive Officer of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, a nonprofit legal organization that litigates and advocates on behalf of Jewish and Israeli clients, including in matters concerning antisemitism and the delegitimization of Israel, and is a law professor at Touro Law School. The author has published commentary rejecting the genocide accusation against Israel, including in the Newsweek, City Journal, and Daily Wire pieces cited in this Article. No funding was received for this Article, and no organization reviewed or approved it before posting. The views expressed are the author's own.
Funder Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The author's salaried positions at the National Jewish Advocacy Center and Touro Law School supported some of the time spent on it.
Suggested Citation:
Goldfeder, Mark, A Textbook Case: The Gaza Genocide Lie And The Law It Had To Rewrite (October 07, 2026). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7578940 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7578940
Access paper on SSRN:
Thread on Twitter: