Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza
The claims by B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel add to an explosive debate over whether Israel's military offensive in Gaza — launched in response to Hamas' deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack that killed some 1,200 people and took more than 250 hostage — amounts to genocide.
The Palestinians, their supporters and international human rights groups make that claim, and the International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel.
But in Israel, founded in the wake of the Holocaust, even the government's strongest critics have largely refrained from making such accusations due to the deep sensitivities and strong memories of the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews. Many in Israel also view the war in Gaza as a justified response to the deadliest attack in the country's history and not an attempt at extermination.
Shattering a taboo in Israel
The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel's conduct in Gaza.
Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel.
'Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel ... coming to this conclusion is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality,' he said.
Israel asserts that it is fighting an existential war and abides by international law. It has rejected genocide allegations as antisemitic.
It is challenging such allegations at the International Court of Justice, and it has rejected the International Criminal Court's allegations that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant committed war crimes in Gaza. Both face international arrest warrants.
Israel's government on Monday said it rejects what it called an 'obscene' and 'politically motivated document.' The Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the AP that the accusation is baseless and only emboldens Hamas. It said Israel only targets Hamas and not civilians.
The reports echo international claims
The rights groups, in separate reports released jointly, said Israel's policies in Gaza, statements by senior officials about its goals there and the systematic dismantling of the territory's health system contributed to their conclusion of genocide.
Their claims echoed those of previous reports from international rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Like other rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have not been allowed into Gaza during the war. Their reports are based on testimonies, documents, eyewitnesses and consultations with legal experts.
Hamas' attack on Israel that started the war sparked a shift in the country's policy toward Palestinians in Gaza from 'repression and control to destruction and annihilation,' B'Tselem said.
The group has long been outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It halted cooperation with the military nearly a decade ago, saying the army's investigations into wrongdoing weren't serious, and it has accused Israel of being an apartheid state.
The PHRI report was a detailed, legal-medical analysis focusing on what it called the step-by-step dismantling of Gaza's health and life-sustaining systems including electricity, clean water and access to food.
Its report says Israel has committed three of the acts of genocide defined by international law, including 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.'
The Israeli rights groups said repeated statements by Israeli officials and the military endorsing the total destruction, starvation and permanent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, combined with policies on the ground, have demonstrated that Israel is intentionally trying to destroy Palestinian society.
Gaza's health ministry said on Monday that 147 people, mostly children, have died from malnutrition-related causes. The ministry operates under the Hamas government and is seen by the U.N. as the most reliable source of data on casualties.
A 'painful' conclusion
The term 'genocide' strikes a chord in Israel, where Israelis grow up learning about the Holocaust and hearing survivors' harrowing stories, while promising it would never happen again.
The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the murder by Nazi Germany of 6 million Jews. It defines genocide as acts 'committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.'
'As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, it's very painful for me to be reaching this conclusion,' said Shalev from PHRI. But after growing up in a society where the Holocaust was so important, it demands some kind of responsibility, he said.
Until now, Israeli criticism of the war in Gaza has been focused on Netanyahu and whether his wartime decision-making has been politically motivated and delayed the return of hostages — 50 of them still in Gaza.
Broader scrutiny of Israel's conduct in Gaza has been limited for multiple reasons. Despite the vast destruction and death in the territory and Israel's growing international isolation, most Israelis have believed for much of the war in its righteousness.
And with most Jewish Israelis serving in the army, it's difficult for most people to fathom that their relatives in uniform could be carrying out genocide. Some soldiers, however, have refused to fight in the war.
Jeffrey Herf, a historian who has published much on antisemitism, said the allegation of genocide doesn't take into account that there is a war between two parties. He said it ignores Hamas as a military force and Israel's right to defend itself.
After groups like B'Tselem in recent years accused Israel of apartheid, more mainstream voices in Israel also picked up the claim, although in less sweeping ways.
Israeli historian Tom Segev said he's not sure the new reports and their allegations will have an impact on the public.
'The major thing for Israelis is a question of the hostages, not necessarily the fate of the population in Gaza,' he said. But he said what's happening in Gaza is undermining the ideological and moral justification for the existence of Israel.
The rights groups said the international community hasn't done enough to protect Palestinians and are calling on the world, including Israelis who have stayed silent, to speak up.
'We have an obligation to do everything we can to speak the truth about this, to stand by the victims,' said Sarit Michaeli, the international director for B'Tselem.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Pre-2026 redistricting race
Good morning!🙋🏼♀️ I'm Nicole Fallert. "Zootopia 2" is the cinema news we needed. A pre-2026 redistricting arms race is heating up Democrats across the country are searching for ways to block or counter a Trump-led effort by Republicans to redraw Texas' congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections This is a rare mid-decade redistricting in Texas. The president and Republicans hope that shifting boundaries in Texas could help the GOP pick up as many as five seats in the 2026 race for control of the U.S. House. A wave of relief The earthquake that hit a Russian island was among the most powerful ever recorded, and forecasters immediately feared it could spur cataclysmic walls of water thousands of miles away in Hawaii, California and Alaska. But hours later, evacuation warnings were lifted for nearly all of the U.S. Damage was determined to be minimal — at least in the U.S. so far, with Honolulu's dangerous traffic gridlock the main impact. More news to know now What's the weather today? Check your local forecast here. Drastic changes are coming to homeless services President Donald Trump has long criticized how the U.S. manages homelessness, and argues public streets aren't safe for either the homeless or residents. Now, the president has declared that organizations for the homeless receiving federal funding mustfocus first on locking up people with drug or mental health challenges. Longtime social workers, medical experts and mental health service providers say a law and order approach will likely worsen homelessness across the country, particularly because Trump's order contains no new funding for mental health or drug treatment. Additionally, they say the president appears to misunderstand the fundamental driver of homelessness: People can't afford housing. The Fed didn't cut interest rates this week. But here's when they might The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady Wednesday between 4.25% and 4.5% — exactly as interest-rate traders' bets had predicted after the policy-making body's meeting in June. Traders now see the Fed's Oct. 29 meeting as the most likely chance for an interest rate cut. That means short-term interest rates — which are heavily influenced by the Fed's decisions — could remain elevated for several more weeks. Today's talkers A major deadline for MLB today There are still several difference-makers on the market so baseball fans can expect a flurry of activity as the 2-25 Major League Baseball trade deadline at 6 p.m. ET approaches. Perhaps today is the day we see starting pitchers Sandy Alcantara, Edward Cabrera, Merrill Kelly or Zac Gallen make shifts? Here are some of the top players who could be on the move ahead of Thursday's deadline. Photo of the day: Goodbye, Ozzy Fans, friends and family bid farewell to Ozzy Osbourne at his funeral procession Wednesday through his home city of Birmingham, England. The Black Sabbath frontman died July 22 at the age of 76, a little over two weeks after his final live performance with his Black Sabbath bandmates. Scroll through for photos of the rock legend's funeral proceedings. Nicole Fallert is a newsletter writer at USA TODAY, sign up for the email here. Want to send Nicole a note? Shoot her an email at NFallert@
Vox
26 minutes ago
- Vox
Democratic voters have turned against Israel. Why won't their leaders?
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. Given how far Democratic voters have moved on support for Israel — a more than 60-point swing in the last decade — why has their party's establishment been so slow to respond? Getty Images Since former Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic Party has been in a panic over how it can win back more voters. Ideas have so far included Democratic officials going on podcasts, finding their own Joe Rogan, and growing facial hair. But when it comes to actual issues Democratic voters care about, the party doesn't seem so eager to experiment. And there's one topic in particular that is showing just how big the divide is between the Democratic establishment and Democratic-leaning voters: the United States' support for Israel. Israel's destruction of Gaza — which many scholars and experts consider to be an ongoing genocide — has prompted a dramatic shift in how Americans view Israel and its relationship with the US. That change is especially pronounced among Democratic voters. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that only 12 percent of Democratic voters say they sympathize more with Israelis, while 60 percent say they are more sympathetic toward Palestinians. Compare that to just eight years ago, when Quinnipiac asked voters the same question. In 2017, 42 percent of Democratic respondents said they sympathized more with Israelis, while only 23 percent sided more with the Palestinians. 'All of a sudden, it's the pro-Palestinian position that actually reigns supreme in Democratic politics, not the Israeli position,' Harry Enten, CNN's chief data analyst, said in a recent broadcast breaking down why Zohran Mamdani, an outspoken critic of Israel, performed so well in the New York City mayoral primaries. 'I rarely ever see shifts like this.' Over the last week, news and images of more and more Palestinian children dying of hunger have finally compelled American politicians to push back on Israel's war crimes in Gaza. A growing number of Democrats have called out Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war in recent days because of just how dire the situation has become, though Israel has been weaponizing humanitarian aid since the start of its war. It seems that nearly two years into Israel's assault on Gaza, more and more Democrats are starting to shift their tone. If Democrats really wanted to act on their criticisms of Netanyahu's government, they could have, over the past two years, tried to suspend military aid to Israel — including defensive weapons — until it complies with international law. But when members of Congress made those kinds of proposals — like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders's resolution to withhold billions in military aid to Israel — they consistently failed to gain any real traction within the Democratic Party, let alone on the Republican side of the aisle. Given how far Democratic voters have moved on support for Israel — a more than 60-point swing in the last decade — why has their party's establishment been so slow to respond? The Israel lobby still has power in Democratic politics Even before the war in Gaza, public opinion in the US, especially among Democrats, was already shifting on Israel. Gallup polls have shown the same trend as the Quinnipiac polls. In 2013, only 19 percent of Democratic voters sympathized more with Palestinians than with Israelis. By 2022 — a year before Hamas's October 7 attacks — that number had doubled to 38 percent. Israel's destruction of Gaza has only accelerated the shift, and by 2025, 59 percent of Democratic voters sympathized more with Palestinians, while only 21 percent sympathized more with Israelis. Gallup That sea-change is not just limited to Democrats. In 2013, 63 percent of independents sympathized more with Israelis, while only 11 percent said they were more sympathetic toward Palestinians, according to Gallup. By 2025, those numbers were 42 percent and 34 percent, respectively — marking a 44-point swing. Republican voters, on the other hand, have remained relatively steady and staunchly pro-Israel. So what accounts for the Democratic reticence to shift on Israel? One major factor is the Israel lobby. Political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have argued that the strength of this lobby — and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in particular — is largely responsible for the strong US-Israel relationship. In a 2006 article for the London Review of Books, which they later spun into a book, they wrote, 'The thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.' Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country — in this case, Israel — are essentially identical.' While others have pushed back on that claim, it's hard to argue that AIPAC — a hard-line pro-Israel group that has lobbied both political parties for decades, helping organize donors' campaign contributions to pro-Israel candidates — does not have a major role in US politics and foreign policy. 'Members of both parties worried about crossing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful bipartisan lobbying organization dedicated to ensuring unwavering U.S. support for Israel,' former President Barack Obama wrote in his memoir, A Promised Land. 'Those who criticized Israeli policy too loudly risked being tagged as 'anti-Israel' (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election.' AIPAC is just one part of a whole lobbying ecosystem that includes other pro-Israel groups, think tanks, and wealthy individuals who try to influence US policy to support Israel. This is a reflection of the way money in politics works in general: that deep-pocketed donors have way more sway over party leaders than average voters. That's why wealthy individuals and corporations, for example, keep avoiding significant tax hikes despite the fact that higher taxes on millionaires are extremely popular among Americans. AIPAC seems keenly aware that Democratic voters' views on Israel are shifting fast, so much so that it has become even more aggressive in recent election cycles. In 2024, the group targeted Democratic members of Congress critical of Israel, spending millions to help unseat them. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri both lost their primaries to challengers backed by AIPAC. And as a result of AIPAC's spending, those two races became the most expensive House primaries in US history. (Notably, AIPAC funneled its money on those races through its new super PAC, the vaguely named 'United Democracy Project,' which is perhaps a sign that even AIPAC is aware of how toxic its brand has become in Democratic politics.) The millions of dollars AIPAC poured into these primaries were a desperate attempt — amid the quickly changing politics around Israel — to send Democrats a warning: Criticize Israel and you'll still face a well-funded opponent. A group of demonstrators stage a protest outside AIPAC's headquarters in Washington, DC. Celal Gunes / Anadolu via Getty Images Of course, AIPAC's influence has its limits. Despite spending record amounts of money to unseat Bowman and Bush, other representatives who have drawn AIPAC's ire — including Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Summer Lee — won reelection comfortably. In some cases, AIPAC didn't even bother trying, knowing the incumbents were too strong. That doesn't mean that AIPAC is going away. The group remains a top donor to some major Democratic figures, including Gillibrand and Jeffries. And even Democrats who reject money from pro-Israel groups can still feel boxed in by the Israel lobby. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, specifically turned AIPAC down when they approached her after she won her first primary in 2018. But it's clear why even she is wary of being too outspoken against Israel. Take, for example, her vote for an amendment that would have stripped Israel of military aid. If she has any ambitions for statewide office, it's not difficult to imagine the attack ads against her, calling her out — potentially calling her antisemitic — for voting to strip Israel of money for defensive weapons. And it's easy to see why that prospect would spook her, especially given that her state is home to the largest Jewish population in the US. It's not just AIPAC Another obstacle to Democrats shifting on Israel is that groups like the Anti-Defamation League have conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism, making it all the more toxic for politicians to talk more openly about Israel's abysmal human rights record, let alone in support of Palestinian liberation. There's also a longstanding bias against Palestinians in American politics and culture. Politicians can get away with repeating Israeli talking points that dehumanize Palestinians, including by (as mentioned above) conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism or decrying symbols like the keffiyeh as hateful, without getting as much pushback as they would if they were talking about other ethnic groups. As a result, anti-Palestinian racism is seldom called out as its own form of discrimination and often flies under the radar. That makes it easier to defend Israel because Palestinians are too often treated as an afterthought in US politics, not people who face life or death consequences as a direct result of US policy. Related The Ilhan Omar controversy shows how little we care about Palestinian lives Finally, there's the problem of political inertia. Many establishment politicians who have been around for some time are accustomed to a different political era when support for Israel was unshakeable. They are also part of an older generation whose views on Israel are vastly different from younger Americans. The stark generational divide is even evident among Jewish voters: A recent poll in the New York City mayor's race showed that 67 percent of Jewish voters under the age of 45 support Mamdani, while only 25 percent of Jewish voters over 45 do. That all helps explain why so many establishment Democrats — used to a kind of politics where Israel enjoyed broad support from voters in both parties — might be reluctant to embrace the new political reality. But at some point, if Democrats truly want to improve their standing among the public — especially now that their approval ratings have record lows — it might be wise to start actually listening to their voters. Will Democrats ever change? These voices are a minority, but they show there is a potential opening for change. The fracture within the party could mean that the Biden administration's record on Gaza will be a topic of fierce debate in the 2028 Democratic primaries, given how Biden enabled one of the bloodiest military assaults this century — one that many Democratic voters, especially young people, view as a genocide. And that could further embolden progressive-leaning Democrats to be more outspoken about their opposition to Israel. As Mamdani's race in New York City showed last month, that might catch some of the more old-school, establishment Democrats by surprise, since being pro-Palestinian is no longer the third rail in American politics that it was long thought to be.
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Iran Issues Update on Nuclear Enrichment
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the country still has the experts, technology and equipment to restart uranium enrichment despite damage to its facilities. He confirmed in an interview with the Financial Times newspaper that Tehran had been preparing to activate a site near Isfahan when it was hit in U.S. strikes toward the end of the 12-day war with Israel. Araghchi said he did not know the location of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, which had been relocated before the U.S. military intervention ordered last month by President Donald Trump. Newsweek has contacted the U.S. State Department and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for comment. Why It Matters Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program remain stalled following strikes by Israel and the United States. The bombing of key nuclear facilities has deepened Iran's mistrust of Washington and reinforced its resolve to continue enrichment. In this photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei waves to the crowd during a ceremony commemorating military personnel, nuclear scientists and other... In this photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei waves to the crowd during a ceremony commemorating military personnel, nuclear scientists and other people who were killed during Israeli airstrikes in June, in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, July 29, 2025. More Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/AP What To Know "Buildings can be rebuilt. Machines can be replaced, because the technology is there. We have plenty of scientists and technicians who used to work in our facilities," Araghchi said. "But when and how we restart our enrichment depends on the circumstances." Western and Israeli officials said the strikes seriously damaged Iran's nuclear sites but did not destroy them, only delaying its program. Trump previously said the U.S. had hit and "completely obliterated" the fortified underground facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and for civilian energy use, but international observers believe the country has enriched uranium far beyond what is needed for non-nuclear purposes. "The President has said repeatedly that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon," a State Department spokesperson told Newsweek last week. Missing Uranium Stockpile Western officials are raising alarms over the disappearance of what the IAEA estimates is more than 400 kilograms—nearly 900 pounds—of enriched uranium, removed by Tehran during the conflict. After declaring Iran non-compliant with its safeguarding obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA later pulled out its inspectors following Iran's suspension of cooperation in response to the Israeli attacks. The global nuclear watchdog said that since 2019, Iran has failed to comply on "undeclared nuclear material" and activities at "multiple undeclared locations." Later, under growing diplomatic pressure from the West, the agency identified a planned uranium enrichment site near Isfahan, one of Iran's major nuclear hubs. Araghchi confirmed the site was struck by U.S. bombs last month. Trump said last week he would hit Iranian nuclear sites again "if necessary," repeating his warning to Tehran that it should abandon its uranium enrichment ambitions. Iran says its forces are ready to respond to any new attack. Iran Sets Conditions Araghchi said Tehran remained open to resuming talks with Washington, but only under certain conditions—Iran wants U.S. compensation for damage done to its facilities in June. "They should explain why they attacked us in the middle of negotiations, and they have to ensure that they are not going to repeat that," he told the FT. Iran and the U.S. held several talks in the weeks before the military conflict, and it is continuing talks with France, the U.K. and Germany following a recent meeting in Turkey. What People Are Saying Iran's Foreign Minster Abbas Araghchi told the Financial Times on Thursday: "We can negotiate, they can present their argument, and we will present our own argument. But with zero enrichment, we don't have a thing." U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters in Scotland on Monday: "We wiped out their nuclear possibilities. They can start again. If they do, we'll wipe it out faster than you can wave your finger at it." A U.S. State Department spokesperson told Newsweek last week: "The Iranian leadership has a window of opportunity to choose a path of peace and prosperity for their people. We are ready to talk directly to the Iranians." What Happens Next Escalating threats and rising tensions with Iran could push the region closer to a renewed military confrontation.
