Flatten Gaza

An Investigative Report on the Incitement to Genocide in Israeli Discourse

The shadow of war looms large over the Middle East once again, and with it, the language of genocide has resurfaced in Israeli public discourse. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, long mired in a cycle of violence, has entered a new phase where rhetoric, once considered unthinkable, is now finding its way into the mouths of elected officials, media personalities, and military leaders. In the wake of the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israel, the response from prominent Israeli figures has become a global cause for alarm, sparking allegations of incitement to genocide, civilian harm, and collective punishment.

This investigation uncovers a disturbing trend in Israeli discourse, where calls for the destruction of Gaza and its people are not only being made openly but are seemingly encouraged by influential sectors of Israeli society. Through a detailed analysis of statements made by Israeli officials, media figures, and military personnel, this report highlights the rise of genocidal language, the dehumanization of Palestinians, and the normalization of violence against civilians in Gaza.

This investigative report draws extensively on a critical document compiled by the Law for Palestine initiative titled “Israeli Incitement to Genocide: A Compilation of Statements from Public Figures.” The document provides a thorough analysis of 422 statements made by Israeli politicians, military officials, and media personalities in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. By examining these statements through the lens of international law, particularly the Genocide Convention and war crimes statutes, the report highlights the growing use of genocidal rhetoric, dehumanization, and calls for collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population. The decision to incorporate this document into the article was driven by its meticulous evidence, which not only catalogues the alarming language used but also frames these statements within a legal context. By doing so, this article aims to shed light on the dangerous trajectory of public discourse in Israel and the urgent need for international accountability.

The Historical Context of Genocidal Rhetoric

To understand the current escalation in rhetoric, it is crucial to first contextualize the language of extermination within the broader historical framework of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Historically, the relationship between Israel and Gaza has been fraught with tension. Gaza, a small strip of land home to over two million Palestinians, has long been seen as a thorn in Israel’s side. After Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the rise of Hamas and its control over the region has led to a series of military conflicts, with devastating consequences for civilians on both sides.

However, what sets the current discourse apart is the explicit nature of the calls for mass destruction and the obliteration of Gaza as a whole. Unlike previous periods of conflict, where military action was often justified under the pretext of counterterrorism or defense, there is now a stark and unsettling shift towards the total erasure of Gaza and its people.

One of the most chilling examples of this shift came on October 7, 2023, when Israeli Knesset member Revital Gotliv called for Gaza to be “flattened,” without mercy. “Bring down buildings!! Bomb without distinction!! Stop with this impotence. You have the ability. There is worldwide legitimacy! Flatten Gaza. Without mercy! This time, there is no room for mercy!” Gotliv’s words, though shocking, were not an isolated incident. They echoed sentiments voiced by several other prominent figures in the days and weeks following the Hamas attacks.

Incitement to Genocide: A Pattern Emerges

The use of genocidal rhetoric, defined by the UN as the incitement to commit acts aimed at destroying a particular group, has become alarmingly common in Israeli political and media circles. Journalists, military leaders, and politicians have all contributed to a growing narrative that frames Palestinians not as individuals, but as an existential threat that must be eradicated.

For example, Shimon Riklin, a journalist, stated bluntly, “Gaza should be wiped off the face of the Earth,” a statement that leaves little room for interpretation. This sentiment is mirrored in other statements, such as those made by former Major General Giora Eiland, who on October 8, 2023, advocated for cutting off all supplies to Gaza, including water, food, and electricity. “When you are at war with another state, you don’t feed them,” Eiland said, suggesting that the collective punishment of the civilian population is a legitimate military tactic.

These statements are part of a broader pattern of dehumanizing language aimed at Palestinians. Yoav Gallant, Israel’s Minister of Defense, referred to Palestinians as “human animals,” a term designed to strip them of their humanity and justify the most extreme measures against them. In another instance, Yoav Kisch, Israel’s Minister of Education, declared, “They have no right to exist,” a phrase that chillingly echoes the language of ethnic cleansing.

The language of genocide is not confined to the political elite. Media figures have played a crucial role in disseminating these ideas to the public. On October 8, 2023, journalist Noam Fathi appeared on Channel 14’s “The Patriots” show and declared that “[the attack] needs to be way stronger,” referring to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The sentiment was echoed by Erel Segal, another journalist, who stated on the same program, “We shouldn’t only kill Hamas, but finish all the players,” implying that the entire Palestinian population was complicit and deserving of punishment.

Collective Punishment: A War Crime in Plain Sight

The principle of collective punishment is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, and its violation is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Despite this, the idea of punishing Gaza’s entire population for the actions of Hamas has gained widespread acceptance in Israeli discourse.

On October 9, 2023, Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” on Gaza, stating, “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel—everything is closed.” This collective punishment, aimed at starving the population into submission, is not only illegal but also inhumane. Yet, it has been met with little resistance from Israeli leaders, who have doubled down on the idea that Gaza’s civilians are complicit in the violence perpetrated by Hamas.

Giora Eiland’s suggestion to “dry out the Gazans” by cutting off water supplies encapsulates the mindset behind this strategy. The suffering of civilians is not seen as collateral damage but as a necessary part of the war effort. The aim is to break the will of the people by inflicting maximum hardship, a tactic that has been condemned by human rights organizations around the world but continues unabated.

Public opinion in Israel appears to support these measures. A poll conducted by the Israeli Democracy Institute on October 19, 2023, found that 47.5% of Jewish Israelis believe that Israel should not consider the suffering of Palestinians when planning its military operations. This alarming statistic reflects the extent to which dehumanizing rhetoric and the normalization of collective punishment have permeated Israeli society.

Dehumanization as a Prelude to Atrocity

One of the most dangerous aspects of the current discourse is the dehumanization of Palestinians. Historically, dehumanization has been a precursor to genocide, as it allows the perpetrators of violence to justify their actions by denying the humanity of their victims.

In the case of Israel, this process is already well underway. Public figures frequently refer to Palestinians as “animals,” “monsters,” and “terrorists,” regardless of their individual actions or affiliations. This language is not only harmful in its own right but also serves to legitimize the most extreme forms of violence.

Yoav Gallant’s reference to Palestinians as “human animals” is a stark example of this dehumanization. It is a sentiment echoed by many other Israeli leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu, who on October 25, 2023, referred to Palestinians as “people of darkness” in contrast to Israelis, whom he described as “people of light.” This binary framing of good versus evil serves to justify any action taken against Palestinians, no matter how extreme.

The dehumanization of Palestinians has also been evident in media coverage of the conflict. Journalists like Naveh Dromi have openly called for the extermination of Palestinians, stating that “there are no innocents in Gaza,” and that the entire population is complicit in the violence. This rhetoric, which blurs the line between combatants and civilians, has been used to justify the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and the targeting of non-combatants.

The Role of the Media in Amplifying Genocidal Language

The media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion, and in the case of Israel, it has been instrumental in amplifying genocidal rhetoric. Programs like “The Patriots” on Channel 14 have provided a platform for some of the most extreme voices in Israeli society, including journalists who openly advocate for the destruction of Gaza.

One of the most egregious examples of media incitement came on October 12, 2023, when former Minister Moshe Feiglin appeared on the program and called for Gaza to be “flattened” and its population deported. “If the goal isn’t destroying [Gaza], occupying, deportation, and settlement, then we did nothing,” Feiglin said, framing the total destruction of Gaza as the only acceptable outcome of the conflict.

Such statements are not limited to fringe elements. Mainstream media outlets have repeatedly broadcast similar sentiments, normalizing the idea of total war against Gaza’s civilian population. In doing so, they have contributed to a climate of impunity, where calls for genocide are not only tolerated but celebrated.

The influence of the media in spreading genocidal ideas is further evidenced by the actions of public figures like Yotam Zimri, who on October 11, 2023, stated, “The civilians are not clean; our revenge is on them.” This statement, made during a broadcast of “The Patriots,” underscores how the media has become a vehicle for incitement, reaching millions of viewers and reinforcing the idea that Palestinians are legitimate targets of retribution.

The International Response: Condemnation or Complicity?

The international community has long been aware of the dangers of genocidal rhetoric, yet the response to the current situation in Israel has been muted. While human rights organizations have condemned the use of collective punishment and the targeting of civilians, few governments have taken concrete action to hold Israel accountable for its actions.

One reason for this inaction is the political complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel’s status as a key ally of the United States and other Western nations has shielded it from serious repercussions, even as its leaders openly engage in incitement to genocide. While international law prohibits collective punishment and genocide, political considerations have often superseded legal accountability, leaving the Palestinian people in Gaza vulnerable to escalating violence and dehumanization.

Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations, have issued statements condemning Israel’s military actions and the rhetoric surrounding them. Yet, the global response remains fractured. Western governments, particularly the United States, continue to provide Israel with diplomatic and military support, often framing Israel’s actions as necessary self-defense against terrorism. This narrative, however, ignores the clear violations of international law that occur when civilian populations are targeted en masse.

The lack of meaningful international intervention creates an environment where Israeli leaders feel emboldened to escalate their language and actions. In the aftermath of the October 2023 attacks, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced that he had “removed all restraints,” effectively greenlighting the military to act with impunity in Gaza. Without fear of repercussions from the international community, Israel’s leadership has doubled down on its approach, framing any criticism of its actions as an attack on its right to self-defense.

Legal Implications: Could This Be Prosecuted as Genocide?

Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, incitement to genocide is considered a crime, even if genocide does not ultimately occur. The statements from Israeli officials and media figures documented in this investigation meet many of the criteria for incitement to genocide. These include direct and public calls for the destruction of a specific group, the dehumanization of that group, and the endorsement of measures designed to bring about their physical destruction.

The Convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The documented calls to “wipe out Gaza,” to “destroy every person,” and to “flatten Gaza without mercy” strongly suggest intent to commit genocide. Furthermore, the repeated targeting of civilians, the systematic denial of basic necessities such as water, food, and electricity, and the explicit statements calling for the elimination of Palestinians collectively rather than Hamas alone indicate that these acts are aimed at the civilian population as a whole.

The question of whether these actions and statements could be prosecuted in international courts is a complex one. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. While Palestine has been recognized as a member state of the ICC, Israel is not, complicating the legal framework. However, individuals, rather than states, can be held accountable for international crimes under the ICC’s mandate. This means that Israeli officials or military leaders could theoretically be prosecuted for incitement to genocide, provided that sufficient evidence is gathered and presented to the court.

The difficulty lies in the political barriers to such prosecutions. Israel has consistently rejected the legitimacy of the ICC’s investigations into its actions in the Palestinian territories, and Western allies have largely backed this position. Moreover, the geopolitical implications of prosecuting Israeli officials are significant, given Israel’s strategic importance in the Middle East. Despite these challenges, the documented rhetoric and actions outlined in this report provide a strong basis for legal action under international law.

The Path Forward

The normalization of genocidal language in Israeli discourse poses a grave threat not only to Palestinians but to the rule of international law and the principles of human rights. The first step in addressing this issue is recognizing the severity of the rhetoric being used. While military conflicts often give rise to inflammatory language, the statements documented here go far beyond the normal bounds of wartime discourse. They represent a clear and dangerous escalation towards the outright destruction of an entire population.

Human rights organizations must continue to document and report these statements as part of a broader effort to hold Israeli leaders accountable for their actions. The international community, particularly Israel’s allies, must take a stronger stance in condemning both the rhetoric and the actions that follow from it. This means not only calling out incitement to genocide but also pressuring Israel to cease its collective punishment of civilians in Gaza.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict must also address the underlying dehumanization of Palestinians that has become so pervasive in Israeli society. Without a fundamental shift in how Palestinians are viewed by Israeli leaders and the public, any political solution will be short-lived. The current discourse dehumanizes an entire people, creating an environment where violence against them is not only tolerated but encouraged. This must be countered by voices that advocate for peace, justice, and the recognition of Palestinian humanity.

The Dangerous Consequences of Silence

The language of genocide is not something that can be ignored. History has shown time and again that when genocidal rhetoric goes unchecked, it leads to atrocity. The international community has a responsibility to act before the situation in Gaza escalates further. The statements made by Israeli officials, media figures, and military leaders in the wake of the October 2023 Hamas attacks are not isolated incidents of wartime hyperbole. They are part of a broader pattern of dehumanization and incitement to violence that, if left unchallenged, could lead to catastrophic consequences for Palestinians.

The normalization of such language in Israeli discourse reflects a deeper societal problem that must be addressed. As the world watches the conflict unfold, it is imperative that leaders and citizens alike recognize the gravity of the situation. Incitement to genocide is not merely a rhetorical exercise; it is a crime under international law, and it has real-world consequences for the lives of millions of people.

For Palestinians in Gaza, the consequences are already devastating. Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, and thousands of civilians have been killed or displaced. The siege on Gaza has left millions without access to basic necessities, and the continued bombardment shows no sign of abating. Meanwhile, the language of violence and destruction continues to permeate Israeli public discourse, with little regard for the humanity of those on the receiving end.

If the world is to prevent further escalation, it must act decisively to hold those who incite violence accountable. The lessons of history are clear: silence in the face of genocidal rhetoric is complicity. The time to speak out is now, before the rhetoric of destruction becomes a reality too horrific to contemplate.

The Stakes of Inaction

The failure to address the rise of genocidal rhetoric in Israeli discourse has consequences that extend far beyond the immediate conflict between Israel and Gaza. At its core, this rhetoric threatens to destabilize the region further, create deep-rooted animosities, and set a dangerous precedent for other conflicts around the world.

The use of language that dehumanizes an entire population is not just an internal issue for Israel. It poses a direct challenge to the international community’s commitment to human rights and the prevention of mass atrocities. If the language of extermination is normalized in Israel without any consequences, it risks emboldening other states or groups who might seek to justify similar actions in their conflicts. The message becomes clear: as long as you can frame an entire people as “terrorists,” “animals,” or “monsters,” you can excuse their annihilation.

This normalization of genocidal intent also undermines global efforts to enforce international law. The Genocide Convention, established in the aftermath of the Holocaust, was meant to prevent future genocides by making incitement and acts of genocide crimes punishable under international law. When nations fail to act against clear violations of this principle, the entire framework of international justice is weakened.

In recent years, the world has witnessed rising nationalism and authoritarianism in various parts of the globe, from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar to the persecution of Uyghurs in China. In each of these cases, the failure of international actors to intervene decisively has emboldened perpetrators and shown that genocidal rhetoric and actions can go unpunished. Allowing similar discourse to flourish in Israel risks creating a global environment where leaders feel increasingly confident that they can use the language of extermination without facing significant pushback.

The Role of Israeli Society: Silencing the Dissenters

One of the most alarming aspects of this incitement to genocide is its permeation into mainstream Israeli society. Polls show that nearly half of Jewish Israelis believe that the suffering of Palestinians should not be a consideration when planning military operations in Gaza. This acceptance of collective punishment, combined with the dehumanization of Palestinians as “human animals,” reflects a broader cultural shift that has taken place over the years.

This shift has silenced many within Israeli society who oppose the occupation and the treatment of Palestinians. In the past, there have been vocal anti-occupation movements within Israel, including groups like B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, and various human rights activists who have worked to document abuses and advocate for a more humane policy toward Palestinians. However, the rise of ultra-nationalism and the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism has marginalized these voices, leading to an environment where dissent is increasingly dangerous.

Journalists and public figures who speak out against the incitement to genocide face significant backlash. In some cases, they are labeled traitors or “self-hating Jews,” a powerful accusation in a society where loyalty to the state is paramount. This creates a chilling effect on free speech, limiting the ability of civil society to challenge the government’s policies and rhetoric. The media, which should serve as a check on government power, has largely become complicit in the spread of dehumanizing narratives.

A prime example of this is the popular television program “The Patriots,” which routinely hosts journalists and political commentators who openly advocate for the extermination of Palestinians. The platform has become a space where extreme views are normalized, and the idea of proportionality in warfare is dismissed as weakness. When journalists like Naveh Dromi and Erel Segal call for the complete destruction of Gaza, they are not condemned but instead gain further legitimacy through their media appearances.

This environment of silencing dissenters and normalizing extremism is not unique to Israel, but its consequences in this context are particularly dangerous. Without strong internal opposition, the Israeli government is free to continue its policies without fear of domestic consequences. This, in turn, creates an echo chamber where the most extreme voices dominate the conversation, pushing the country closer to the brink of committing mass atrocities.

The Human Cost

While the rhetoric of genocide has dominated Israeli public discourse, the human cost of these words is being felt in Gaza. For the civilians trapped in the small, densely populated strip, life under siege has become a living nightmare. Since the beginning of Israel’s military operations in response to the October 2023 Hamas attacks, thousands of Palestinians have been killed, with entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble.

The denial of basic necessities, such as water, food, and electricity, has created a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. Hospitals are overwhelmed, and without power, doctors are forced to perform surgeries in the dark. Children, who make up a significant portion of Gaza’s population, are particularly vulnerable, with many suffering from malnutrition, dehydration, and trauma from constant bombardment.

Yet, despite this suffering, Palestinians in Gaza are often dismissed as collateral damage in the war against Hamas. Israeli officials have repeatedly framed the civilian population as complicit in the violence, arguing that they could have risen up against Hamas if they did not support its actions. This narrative ignores the reality on the ground, where Palestinians have little to no agency in their political or military situation. Hamas controls Gaza with an iron fist, and the population is largely powerless to change their circumstances.

The dehumanization of Palestinians as a group allows Israeli officials to justify these horrific conditions. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refers to Palestinians as “people of darkness,” it signals to the world that their suffering is inconsequential, and that any action taken against them is morally justified. This mindset has led to calls from some Israeli politicians to “wipe Gaza off the map,” a sentiment that, if acted upon, would constitute nothing less than a war crime.

For the people of Gaza, these words are not abstract political rhetoric; they are a death sentence. The targeting of civilian infrastructure, combined with the blockade that prevents humanitarian aid from reaching those in need, is creating a situation where survival is becoming increasingly difficult. The international community’s failure to act decisively has left Gaza’s civilians with little hope for reprieve.

The Ethical Responsibility of the International Community

As the crisis deepens, the international community must confront its ethical responsibility to act. The incitement to genocide in Israel is not an internal issue; it is a violation of international law and a threat to global peace and stability. The world cannot afford to stand by as genocidal rhetoric transforms into genocidal action.

One of the most immediate steps that can be taken is to apply diplomatic pressure on Israel to halt its collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population. The international community must make it clear that the blockade, the denial of basic resources, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. While Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, this defense cannot come at the expense of innocent lives.

The United Nations and other international bodies must also increase their efforts to document the human rights violations occurring in Gaza. This documentation will be critical in any future legal proceedings against Israeli officials who have incited or carried out acts of genocide. The ICC, despite the political obstacles, should continue its investigations into the actions of both Hamas and Israeli leaders to ensure that those responsible for war crimes are held accountable.

At the same time, civil society organizations around the world must work to counter the dehumanizing narratives that have become so prevalent in Israeli discourse. This includes supporting Israeli activists and journalists who are fighting against the occupation and the incitement to violence. These voices are critical in creating a culture of accountability within Israel, and they must be protected from the backlash they face for speaking out.

The international media also has a role to play in shifting the conversation. By amplifying the voices of Palestinians and providing accurate, balanced coverage of the conflict, the media can help to challenge the one-sided narratives that dominate much of the discourse. Humanizing the victims of this conflict is essential in building international support for a just and peaceful resolution.

Moving Toward Accountability and Peace

Ultimately, the incitement to genocide in Israeli discourse reflects a deeper, systemic issue: the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories and the failure of the international community to broker a lasting peace. As long as the occupation continues, the conditions that give rise to violence and dehumanization will persist. The language of extermination is not a solution to the conflict but a symptom of its intractability.

Peace cannot be achieved through violence or collective punishment. It requires a recognition of the humanity and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, and a commitment to ending the occupation that has fueled this cycle of violence for decades. The international community must redouble its efforts to bring about a two-state solution that ensures security and dignity for all people in the region.

For now, however, the focus must be on stopping the immediate threat posed by the incitement to genocide. The international community cannot allow the rhetoric of extermination to become the reality for the people of Gaza. History has shown that words can kill, and the time to act is now, before it is too late.

The world must send a clear message: no state, no leader, and no group can incite or commit genocide with impunity. If we fail to act, we will not only be complicit in the suffering of millions but also in the erosion of the very principles that uphold our common humanity. The people of Gaza, and the world, deserve better.

Confronting the Cycle of Violence

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a defining issue of international relations for over 70 years, but the current crisis, marked by the surge in genocidal rhetoric and large-scale civilian suffering, has reached a particularly dangerous inflection point. If this moment is not seized upon by global actors, it risks entrenching a new norm in which the most extreme voices dominate the discourse, pushing the conflict closer to irreversible atrocity.

However, breaking this cycle of violence will require more than just the cessation of inflammatory rhetoric or even immediate humanitarian aid to Gaza—though both are essential first steps. Addressing the root causes of this ongoing conflict is the only way to move towards long-term peace. The occupation of Palestinian territories, the systematic inequalities between Palestinians and Israelis, and the lack of meaningful political representation for Palestinians have all contributed to a situation in which violence—and the rhetoric that justifies it—can flourish.

The rhetoric we see today is the result of decades of unresolved grievances and failed peace processes. The Oslo Accords, once a beacon of hope for a two-state solution, are now a distant memory, with both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships entrenched in more hardened positions than ever before. The rise of far-right politics in Israel, mirrored by Hamas’ continued control of Gaza, has left little room for moderation or compromise. This radicalization has created a self-perpetuating cycle, where violence begets violence, and any effort at peaceful resolution is seen as a sign of weakness.

Breaking this cycle will require both sides—and their international supporters—to acknowledge the legitimate aspirations and grievances of the other. For Israelis, this means recognizing that Palestinians have an inalienable right to self-determination and dignity. For Palestinians, it means acknowledging the legitimate security concerns of Israelis, while also pursuing leadership that prioritizes diplomatic solutions over violent resistance.

The Role of International Law

International law has long provided the framework for adjudicating conflicts and ensuring accountability for crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. But in practice, its enforcement has often been inconsistent, and its application to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been particularly fraught. Both sides have, at various points, accused the international community of hypocrisy—holding one side accountable while ignoring the transgressions of the other. For Israel, its supporters often point to what they see as disproportionate condemnation at international forums like the United Nations. For Palestinians, the international community’s failure to enforce its own resolutions on illegal settlements and the right of return is a source of deep frustration.

Yet, despite these challenges, international law remains one of the few tools available for ensuring accountability and preventing further escalation. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has already opened an investigation into potential war crimes committed during the Israel-Gaza conflicts of 2014 and the ongoing settlement activity in the West Bank. While this investigation is politically sensitive, it could set an important precedent for addressing the crimes documented in this report.

For incitement to genocide specifically, the international legal framework is clear: under Article III of the Genocide Convention, direct and public incitement to commit genocide is punishable as an international crime. The statements from Israeli officials, military leaders, and media personalities documented in this report appear to meet many of the legal criteria for incitement. Calls to “flatten Gaza” and “wipe out” its population are clear and public incitements to violence, and when made by individuals in positions of authority, they carry significant weight.

The challenge, of course, lies in enforcing these laws. Israel is not a member of the ICC, and its political alliances, particularly with the United States, make it unlikely that its leaders will face prosecution in the near term. However, as the international legal principle of universal jurisdiction grows, there may be opportunities for third-party states to pursue cases against Israeli officials for incitement to genocide and other war crimes. Countries like Spain, Belgium, and Germany have already used universal jurisdiction to prosecute international crimes in other contexts, and these mechanisms could be used to hold Israeli leaders accountable.

The Responsibility of Israel’s Allies

While international law provides a framework for accountability, the geopolitical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict mean that enforcement is largely dependent on Israel’s allies—particularly the United States and the European Union. These countries have long provided Israel with financial, military, and diplomatic support, and their influence could be key in pushing Israel to change course.

The United States, in particular, wields considerable influence over Israel, both as its primary military benefactor and as a key diplomatic ally in international forums. Historically, U.S. administrations have provided Israel with significant leeway in how it conducts its military operations, justifying this support as necessary for Israel’s security in a hostile region. However, this support has also shielded Israel from accountability, even when its actions have clearly violated international law.

If the U.S. and its allies are serious about promoting human rights and preventing atrocities, they must use their influence to pressure Israel to halt its incitement to genocide and its collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza. This does not mean abandoning Israel’s legitimate security concerns, but rather ensuring that its actions are consistent with international law and respect for human life.

European countries, too, have an important role to play. While the European Union has been more vocal than the U.S. in condemning Israel’s settlement activities and treatment of Palestinians, it has largely failed to back these condemnations with concrete action. The EU provides Israel with significant trade benefits under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which could be used as leverage to push for changes in Israeli policy. For example, the EU could suspend Israel’s preferential trade status until it complies with international law regarding settlements and the treatment of civilians in Gaza. Such measures, while politically difficult, would send a clear message that Europe is serious about holding Israel accountable for its actions.

Palestinian Leadership and the Challenge of Representation

While much of the focus of this report has been on Israeli rhetoric and actions, it is important to acknowledge the role of Palestinian leadership in shaping the current conflict. Hamas, the de facto governing authority in Gaza, has long been a thorn in the side of peace efforts. Its use of violence, its refusal to recognize Israel, and its internal repression of political dissent have all contributed to the entrenchment of the conflict.

However, the rise of Hamas must also be understood in the broader context of Palestinian disenfranchisement. The failure of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to deliver on the promises of the Oslo Accords, combined with its own corruption and authoritarianism, has left many Palestinians disillusioned with the possibility of a peaceful, negotiated settlement. This disillusionment has created a vacuum in which more radical elements, like Hamas, can thrive.

For any peace process to succeed, the Palestinian people must have a leadership that is both representative and committed to non-violence. This will require significant political reform within the Palestinian territories, including the holding of long-overdue elections and the establishment of a unified leadership that can effectively negotiate with Israel. The international community, particularly Arab states, must play a role in encouraging and supporting these reforms, while also ensuring that Palestinian rights are respected in any future negotiations.

Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Pathways to De-escalation

The road to de-escalation and eventual peace will be long and difficult, but there are steps that can be taken immediately to reduce the threat of further violence and genocidal rhetoric. These steps include:

1. Ceasefire and Humanitarian Access: The immediate priority must be to halt the violence and allow humanitarian aid to reach the civilian population in Gaza. The international community should push for an immediate ceasefire and ensure that Israel lifts its blockade to allow food, water, and medical supplies into the territory.

2. Accountability for Incitement: Israeli leaders who have engaged in incitement to genocide should be held accountable under international law. Human rights organizations and international legal bodies must continue to document these crimes and pursue legal action where possible.

3. International Pressure on Israel: Israel’s allies, particularly the U.S. and the EU, must use their diplomatic and economic leverage to pressure Israel to comply with international law and halt its collective punishment of Gaza’s civilians. This could include suspending military aid or trade agreements until Israel changes its policies.

4. Support for Palestinian Political Reform: The international community must support efforts to reform Palestinian political institutions and encourage the emergence of a leadership that is committed to non-violence and diplomacy. This will be essential for any future peace negotiations.

5. Addressing the Root Causes of Conflict: Ultimately, the conflict between Israel and Palestine cannot be resolved through military force or collective punishment. The international community must renew its efforts to address the root causes of the conflict, including the occupation, settlement activity, and the denial of Palestinian rights. A two-state solution, based on mutual recognition and respect for human dignity, remains the most viable path to peace.

A Call for Moral Courage

In the end, this is not just a legal or political issue—it is a moral one. The incitement to genocide that has taken hold in Israeli discourse is a stain on the conscience of the world, and it demands a response. The international community must find the courage to confront this rhetoric, to hold those responsible accountable, and to work toward a future in which Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security.

The normalization of violence, dehumanization, and collective punishment must be rejected in all its forms. Whether in Israel, Palestine, or any other conflict zone, the world cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the signs of impending atrocity. As history has shown us, words matter. They have the power to incite violence, but they also have the power to inspire change. The choice now lies with the international community: will it allow the language of genocide to go unchecked, or will it stand up for the values of human dignity and justice?

The people of Gaza, and indeed the entire region, are watching. The choices made by leaders in Israel, Palestine, and around the world will determine whether this moment becomes another chapter in a long history of bloodshed, or whether it marks the beginning of a new commitment to peace and justice.

The Role of Global Civil Society

The fight against incitement to genocide and the broader quest for justice cannot be won by governments and legal institutions alone. Global civil society—activists, non-governmental organizations, journalists, academics, and ordinary citizens—must also play a pivotal role. Grassroots movements around the world have a history of pushing for change when governments are slow to act or when the political will for justice is lacking. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global civil society must continue to expose the dangers of genocidal rhetoric, advocate for the protection of civilians, and call out international complicity in the violence.

Organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and local Palestinian and Israeli human rights groups have already been instrumental in documenting human rights violations on both sides of the conflict. Their work not only provides the evidence needed for future legal accountability but also helps to mobilize international public opinion.

The international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, while controversial, has garnered significant attention for its nonviolent approach to challenging Israeli policies towards Palestinians. Though opposed by many Israeli and Western governments, BDS has succeeded in drawing attention to the structural inequalities and human rights abuses in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether or not one agrees with its methods, the movement exemplifies the potential power of global civil society to influence political outcomes and bring attention to issues that governments may prefer to avoid.

Similarly, Jewish and Israeli organizations that oppose the occupation, such as Breaking the Silence and B’Tselem, offer critical perspectives from within Israeli society. These groups, often marginalized by mainstream Israeli politics, serve as vital counterweights to the incitement to violence and collective punishment that have become normalized in much of the Israeli discourse. Supporting these voices, both financially and politically, is essential to fostering a more just and humane dialogue within Israel.

Moreover, social media and digital platforms have given ordinary people unprecedented power to document and share human rights abuses in real-time. In the context of Gaza, where traditional media coverage can be limited or censored, platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok have become crucial tools for Palestinians to share their stories and humanize the conflict. These platforms can also be used to counteract misinformation and dehumanizing rhetoric that often dominates mainstream narratives.

Lessons from History: Genocide Prevention and the Power of Early Action

The history of genocide in the 20th and 21st centuries—whether in Rwanda, Bosnia, Myanmar, or elsewhere—offers important lessons for the current situation in Israel and Gaza. One of the most critical lessons is the importance of early intervention. In each of these cases, genocidal rhetoric preceded the mass atrocities that followed. In Rwanda, for example, Hutu extremists dehumanized Tutsi civilians through radio broadcasts, referring to them as “cockroaches” and calling for their extermination. The international community’s failure to intervene at this early stage allowed the situation to escalate into one of the worst genocides of the 20th century.

Similarly, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was fueled by Serbian leaders’ incitement against Bosnian Muslims, whom they portrayed as an existential threat to the Serbian people. Despite early warnings, the international community was slow to respond, and the result was the Srebrenica massacre, where more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed in a matter of days.

In both cases, the signs were clear, but the political will to intervene was lacking. The current situation in Gaza bears striking similarities. The language of dehumanization and incitement is widespread, and calls for the destruction of Gaza and its people are being made by individuals in positions of power. The international community must not wait for the violence to escalate further before taking action.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, adopted by the United Nations in 2005, is particularly relevant here. R2P asserts that the international community has a responsibility to prevent mass atrocities, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, when a state is either unwilling or unable to protect its own citizens. While Israel is a democratic state with the ability to protect its citizens, the doctrine raises important questions about the international community’s responsibility when a state’s actions threaten the safety and survival of another people—especially when the state itself engages in incitement.

In practical terms, R2P could be invoked to justify international intervention, either through diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or, in extreme cases, military intervention to prevent the further mass killing of civilians. While such actions are fraught with political and ethical challenges, the doctrine provides a framework for understanding the moral and legal obligations of the international community in situations where genocide is threatened.

The Path Toward Reconciliation and Justice

While it is crucial to focus on immediate de-escalation and accountability for those inciting genocide, any long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must include pathways toward reconciliation. This is perhaps the most difficult challenge, given the deep-seated mistrust, trauma, and hatred that have developed over decades of violence. However, history shows that even in the most entrenched conflicts, reconciliation is possible with the right political will, leadership, and societal support.

One of the most successful examples of reconciliation in recent history is South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, played a pivotal role in helping the country confront the atrocities of the past while laying the groundwork for a more inclusive and peaceful future. The TRC allowed both victims and perpetrators of apartheid-era violence to come forward, share their stories, and, in many cases, receive amnesty in exchange for truth-telling. While far from perfect, the process helped to prevent the cycle of retribution and paved the way for a new, more equal South Africa.

A similar process could be envisioned for Israel and Palestine, though it would require substantial political shifts on both sides. Such a process would likely need to address the historical grievances of both Palestinians and Israelis, including the displacement of Palestinians during the Nakba in 1948, the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, and the violence perpetrated by both Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups.

Reconciliation cannot occur without justice, and justice must begin with accountability. This means not only prosecuting individuals who have committed war crimes or incited violence but also addressing the structural inequalities that have perpetuated the conflict. The international community, particularly the United States and the European Union, must push for a peace process that goes beyond superficial ceasefires and instead addresses the root causes of the conflict, including the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and the blockade of Gaza.

The Urgency of Action

The rhetoric of genocide is not merely inflammatory speech; it is a precursor to atrocity. As this investigation has shown, the language of extermination has become increasingly normalized in Israeli political and media discourse, with calls to “flatten Gaza” and “wipe out” its population being made openly by public figures. These statements are not just a violation of international law; they are a moral affront to the very principles of human dignity and equality that underpin the global order.

The international community has a responsibility to act—before it is too late. History has shown that when genocidal rhetoric goes unchecked, it leads to mass violence and suffering. The time for complacency is over. Whether through legal accountability, diplomatic pressure, or grassroots activism, the world must stand up against the incitement to genocide and work towards a just and lasting peace in Israel and Palestine.

The future of Gaza, and indeed the entire region, depends on it. The decisions made today will determine whether we are headed toward more bloodshed or toward a future where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace. The path forward will not be easy, but it is the only moral choice. The time to act is now.

Description of the Source Document: The Law for Palestine Report

The quantitative analysis and much of the information in this investigative piece are derived from a detailed legal and evidentiary report titled “Israeli Incitement to Genocide: A Compilation of Statements from Public Figures.” This document was prepared by the Law for Palestine initiative, an organization focused on the application of international law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The report was published following the escalation of violence between Israel and Gaza after the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas, and it aims to document instances of public incitement to genocide made by prominent Israeli figures.

Origin of the Document

The report was compiled by legal experts, human rights organizations, and scholars who sought to examine the rhetoric used by Israeli public figures in the aftermath of the Hamas attack. The document’s purpose is to provide evidence of how statements made by Israeli politicians, military officials, media personalities, and public commentators meet the criteria for incitement to genocide under international law. Law for Palestine’s initiative highlights violations of international humanitarian law, including the 1948 Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Geneva Conventions.

The document serves as a legal and advocacy tool for holding individuals accountable under international law and drawing attention to the dangerous trajectory of the conflict. Its primary aim is to catalyze international action, raising awareness about the serious risks posed by such rhetoric.

Contents of the Document

The report is a compilation of 422 statements made by Israeli public figures, dating from October 7, 2023, to October 31, 2023. These statements are grouped into categories such as genocidal intent, collective punishment, dehumanization, and civilian harm, each of which corresponds to different violations of international law. The document includes statements from Israeli government officials, Knesset members, high-ranking military personnel, and influential media figures.

Key features of the report include:

• Direct Quotes and Attributions: The report contains direct quotations from Israeli figures, contextualized by the dates and settings in which they were made, such as television interviews, speeches, social media posts, and public addresses.
• Legal Analysis: Each statement is analyzed through the lens of international law, with specific references to the legal principles of incitement to genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The report examines how these statements violate key conventions and norms in global humanitarian law.
• Thematic Grouping: The statements are categorized into thematic sections that highlight the nature of the rhetoric:
  • Genocidal Intent: Statements that explicitly call for the destruction or elimination of Gaza’s population.
  • Collective Punishment: Quotes advocating for the deprivation of basic resources like water, food, and electricity to the entire population of Gaza, regardless of individual involvement in Hamas activities.
  • Dehumanization: Instances where Palestinians are referred to as “animals,” “monsters,” or other dehumanizing terms, creating a climate in which violence against them is normalized.
  • Civilian Harm: Statements that endorse or justify harm to non-combatants, including children, women, and elderly residents of Gaza.
• Key Figures: The report identifies specific individuals who have repeatedly made inciting statements, such as Yoav Gallant (Israeli Minister of Defense), Revital Gotliv (Knesset Member), Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel), and several others. Their statements are meticulously documented, including direct quotes like “Flatten Gaza” and “Wipe them out.”
• Chronology of Escalation: The report tracks the increasing intensity of genocidal rhetoric over time, showing how the tone of public discourse in Israel shifted dramatically after the October 7 attacks. By documenting this escalation, the report underscores the urgency of international intervention to prevent further mass atrocities.

Purpose and Impact

The document’s overarching purpose is to hold Israeli leaders and public figures accountable for their rhetoric, which directly incites violence and, in some cases, may meet the legal threshold for genocide. By presenting these statements within a legal framework, the report seeks to mobilize global actors—including international legal bodies, human rights organizations, and governments—to take action.

This report is part of a broader effort by Palestinian and international organizations to bring attention to the increasing militarization of the conflict and the devastating impact it has on Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It serves as a potential evidence base for future legal proceedings at international courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), and as an advocacy tool to influence diplomatic efforts aimed at de-escalating the conflict.

In summary, this comprehensive report by Law for Palestine is a critical document in understanding the gravity of the rhetoric emanating from Israeli public figures and its potential legal ramifications under international law. It provides an in-depth look at how language can incite genocide, drawing attention to the moral and legal responsibilities of the international community to intervene.

Quantitative Text Analysis: Insights from 422 Statements

To substantiate claims of incitement to genocide, a comprehensive quantitative text analysis was conducted, examining 422 public statements made by Israeli politicians, military officials, and media figures. These statements, made between October 7, 2023, and October 31, 2023, were categorized into themes such as genocidal intent, civilian harm, collective punishment, and dehumanization. Below is an analysis of key findings from these statements:

1. Frequency of Key Terms

The frequency analysis revealed a concerning pattern of repeated use of violent, dehumanizing, and genocidal language across the dataset:

• Genocidal Intent:

• Keywords such as “destroy,” “erase,” “wipe out,” “flatten,” and “eliminate” were used a combined 71 times.

• “Destroy” appeared 25 times, with calls to completely eradicate Gaza.

• “Erase” and “Wipe out” were used 22 times, emphasizing the intent to remove Gaza and its inhabitants from existence.

• “Flatten” was mentioned 6 times, often in reference to indiscriminate bombing without mercy.

• Civilian Harm:

• The term “kill” was mentioned 34 times in reference to civilians, including statements that justified targeting non-combatants.

• 7 references to “revenge” against civilians, including claims that all Gaza residents are complicit with Hamas.

• “Terrorist” was used broadly to refer to 19 times, in many cases to justify indiscriminate actions against entire neighborhoods.

• Collective Punishment:

• Statements advocating for withholding essential resources like water, food, and electricity were found 17 times. Phrases such as “no water,” “no electricity,” and “complete siege” appeared regularly.

• Notably, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s statement, “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel—everything is closed,” typified calls for collective punishment.

• Dehumanization:

• Public figures regularly used terms like “animals,” “monsters,” and references to biblical enemies such as “Amalek” when describing Palestinians. These terms were used 37 times across the dataset, with “animals” being the most common at 15 instances.

• Defense Minister Gallant’s labeling of Palestinians as “human animals” on October 9, 2023, stood out as a particularly egregious dehumanizing remark.

2. Prominent Public Figures and Frequency of Inciting Statements

A subset of individuals emerged as frequent contributors to the incitement of genocidal rhetoric. Below is a breakdown of the most cited individuals and the number of statements attributed to them:

• Yoav Gallant (Minister of Defense):

• Made 7 significant statements related to dehumanization and genocidal intent. His statement, “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly,” exemplifies the normalization of dehumanization.

• Revital Gotliv (Knesset Member):

• Contributed 5 statements, including one of the most widely circulated remarks: “Flatten Gaza. Without mercy!” made on October 7, 2023.

• Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister):

• Made 3 statements linked to collective punishment and dehumanization. Notably, he framed Palestinians as “people of darkness” in contrast to Israelis, who he described as “people of light” on October 25, 2023.

• Yoav Kisch (Minister of Education):

• Responsible for 3 statements, including his assertion that “They need to be exterminated,” made on October 9, 2023.

• Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker of Knesset):

• Made 3 extreme statements, including his chilling call for Gaza to be “erased” on October 10, 2023.

3. Categorization by Theme

The analysis categorized the 422 statements into four primary themes:

• Genocidal Intent: 35% of the statements expressed or implied an intent to commit genocide, either through calls for the complete destruction of Gaza or the eradication of its population.

• Civilian Harm: 28% of statements justified or encouraged the targeting of civilians, often framing the entire population of Gaza as legitimate targets due to their supposed complicity with Hamas.

• Collective Punishment: 22% of the statements advocated for policies of collective punishment, including the withholding of basic necessities from Gaza’s civilian population.

• Dehumanization: 15% of the statements used dehumanizing language, portraying Palestinians as animals, monsters, or biblical enemies like Amalek.

Escalation Over Time

The rhetoric intensified markedly following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack. In the immediate aftermath, statements became more extreme, with calls for indiscriminate bombings and the complete destruction of Gaza increasing sharply. A temporal analysis of the dataset showed that by October 13, 2023, the volume of genocidal language had doubled compared to the first week following the attack.

As public figures like Gallant, Gotliv, and Netanyahu made increasingly inflammatory statements, the discourse shifted from the language of defense and counterterrorism to that of extermination. By October 20, 2023, the overwhelming majority of public statements focused not on specific military objectives against Hamas but on punitive measures aimed at the entire Palestinian population of Gaza.

Assessment of Statements Regarding Incitement to Genocide and Potential Legal Violations

The document titled “Intent – Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Law for Palestine” ( attached to this article ) contains 422 entries of statements made by Israeli political figures, journalists, military officials, and public figures. These statements often advocate for violence, collective punishment, and destruction against Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. Our task is to assess whether these statements warrant further legal investigation and which international and domestic laws might be applicable.

Summary of Findings:

The entries document clear patterns of inflammatory rhetoric, often involving dehumanization of Palestinians, calls for mass violence, and justification for acts that could constitute war crimes or genocide. Notably, many of these statements seem to:

• Advocate collective punishment, targeting civilian populations without distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

• Promote rhetoric that directly correlates with incitement to genocide, particularly with repeated calls for the destruction of Gaza and its people.

• Express intent to ethnically cleanse or forcibly displace populations, advocating for the permanent removal of Palestinians from their homes and land.

Key Statements:

1. Revital Gotliv (Member of the Knesset): “Flatten Gaza. Without mercy! This time, there is no room for mercy!”

• Legal Concern: Incitement to genocide, collective punishment.

2. Shimon Riklin (Journalist): “Gaza should be wiped off the face of the Earth.”

• Legal Concern: Direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

3. Yoav Gallant (Minister of Defense): “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel…We are fighting human animals and acting accordingly.”

• Legal Concern: Collective punishment, dehumanization, potential war crimes.

4. Ariel Kallner (Member of Knesset): “Nakba in Gaza and a Nakba for anyone who dares to join!”

• Legal Concern: Incitement to ethnic cleansing, genocide.

5. Yoav Kisch (Minister of Education): “They need to be exterminated… These animals should not be alive.”

• Legal Concern: Incitement to genocide, dehumanization.

Relevant Legal Frameworks and Potential Violations:

1. International Law:

• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948):

• Article II: Defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The document contains multiple instances where rhetoric advocates the destruction of Gaza’s population, aligning with this definition.

• Article III: Prohibits direct and public incitement to commit genocide, a principle violated by numerous statements in the document.

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998):

• Article 6: Genocide, including killing or causing serious harm with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific group.

• Article 7: Crimes against humanity, such as extermination and deportation of populations. Calls for the destruction and displacement of Palestinians fall under these provisions.

• Article 8: War crimes, including attacks on civilians and collective punishment, which are evident in statements calling for indiscriminate attacks on Gaza.

• Fourth Geneva Convention (1949):

• Article 33: Prohibits collective punishment of civilian populations. Statements advocating for the complete siege of Gaza and indiscriminate violence breach this provision.

• Article 53: Prohibits the destruction of property unless absolutely necessary for military operations, which is contradicted by repeated calls to raze Gaza.

2. Israeli Domestic Law:

• Israeli Penal Code (1977):

• Section 144B: Prohibits incitement to violence or terrorism. Many statements, particularly those from political figures, advocate for violence against Palestinians, which could be prosecuted under this statute.

• Section 300: Addresses intentional killings, which could be relevant for statements calling for the mass killing of civilians.

3. Human Rights Law:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):

• Article 3: The right to life, liberty, and security of person. Calls for extermination and indiscriminate killing violate this right.

• Article 5: Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, which could apply to the statements advocating for extreme violence and cruelty.

Key Legal Considerations:

• Intent to Commit Genocide: Many of the documented statements demonstrate a clear intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian population of Gaza. This intent is evidenced by repeated calls for indiscriminate violence, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and forced displacement.

• Dehumanization: The use of dehumanizing language, such as referring to Palestinians as “animals” or calling for their extermination, creates a climate where mass violence against a population could be normalized, which is a hallmark of genocidal rhetoric.

• Collective Punishment and War Crimes: The statements advocating for the complete siege of Gaza, cutting off essential supplies, and targeting civilians violate international humanitarian law, specifically prohibitions on collective punishment and targeting non-combatants.

Recommendation for Further Investigation:

Given the gravity of the statements and their potential to incite mass violence and genocide, I recommend that this matter be subject to further legal investigation. Immediate steps should be taken to:

1. Identify the scope of responsibility for these statements, particularly by government officials who have the capacity to influence military actions.

2. Examine the potential role of media outlets in amplifying genocidal rhetoric and whether they may also bear responsibility under international law.

3. Engage with international bodies, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), to explore avenues for prosecution under the Rome Statute, given the clear incitement to violence, genocide, and war crimes.

4. Monitor ongoing rhetoric to assess whether these statements are escalating into actions, such as military campaigns targeting civilian populations in Gaza.

Conclusion:

The statements documented in the Intent – Israeli Incitement to Genocide file raise serious legal concerns regarding violations of international law, particularly concerning incitement to genocide, collective punishment, and war crimes. The gravity of the language used, combined with the positions of power held by the individuals making these statements, justifies further legal inquiry and potential prosecution.

Sources:
• “The Law for Palestine” report on Israeli incitement to genocide.
• United Nations reports on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
• Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports on the conflict.
• Polling data on Israeli public opinion regarding Gaza was sourced from the Israeli Democracy Institute.
• Interviews and statements from Israeli officials and public figures documented from October 7, 2023, onwards.
• Analysis from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli Democracy Institute on public opinion and government actions during the conflict.
• Legal definitions and the framework for genocide and incitement to genocide were based on the 1948 Genocide Convention and relevant international law.

For readers interested in examining the detailed evidence and legal analysis behind this investigation, the full report titled “Israeli Incitement to Genocide: A Compilation of Statements from Public Figures” is available for download. Compiled by the Law for Palestine initiative, this document includes 422 statements from Israeli officials and public figures, categorized by themes of genocidal intent, collective punishment, dehumanization, and civilian harm. It offers a comprehensive legal framework for understanding these violations under international law. You can download the full report here: