Which countries formally recognize Israel or Gaza as perpetrators or victims of genocide?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several states, international bodies and human-rights organisations have publicly described Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide or called the situation “genocide” (examples include Amnesty International, the UN Commission of Inquiry chaired by Navi Pillay, the UN OHCHR commission, and a growing list of states and sub‑national bodies) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Other states and commentators reject the label or say evidence is still being litigated at the International Court of Justice; South Africa has taken Israel to the ICJ under the Genocide Convention [5] [6].
1. Who has formally said “genocide” about Gaza — international bodies and NGOs
Major human‑rights organisations and UN investigative bodies have issued findings or statements that call Israel’s conduct genocidal: Amnesty International concluded Israel is committing genocide and published legal analysis to that effect [1]; a UN Commission of Inquiry chaired by Navi Pillay reported that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza [2]; and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) commission likewise concluded genocidal intent could be inferred from patterns of conduct and statements [3]. These are formal institutional findings and legal assessments by bodies with mandates to investigate human‑rights law [1] [2] [3].
2. Which countries or governments have publicly recognised Gaza/Palestinians as genocide victims
Several states, particularly in the Global South and some regional governments, have described the situation in Gaza as genocide or adopted policies in response — for instance, coverage cites countries such as Turkey and South Africa routinely using the term and lists of states (Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, and South Africa) coordinating sanctions or measures framed as responses to what they call genocide [7] [8]. Sub‑national governments and individual national leaders in places such as parts of Spain, Italy and Slovenia have publicly used the word “genocide” [4] [6]. Available sources do not provide a single, exhaustive official list of every national government that has formally recognised “genocide”; reporting instead documents a growing number of national statements and coordinated actions [7] [8].
3. Formal legal action and the role of the ICJ
South Africa filed proceedings at the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention accusing Israel of genocide, a high‑profile legal route that seeks a judicial determination rather than a unilateral political declaration [5]. The ICJ has issued provisional measures in related litigation noting a plausible risk of genocide; multiple sources stress that final legal determination remains with judicial processes [5] [9]. This highlights a split between political or advocacy recognitions and the slower, evidentiary burden of international adjudication [5] [9].
4. Which actors deny or resist the label
Numerous states, officials and commentators dispute that the legal threshold for genocide has been met or urge caution pending judicial findings. For example, some analysts and officials argue Israel’s actions should be judged as war crimes or crimes against humanity rather than genocide, and certain governments have expressly rejected the use of the term in diplomatic contexts [5]. The sources show competing scholarly opinion: some academic surveys indicate growing consensus that the campaign is genocidal, while other experts (and Israeli authorities) dispute genocidal intent [5] [2].
5. Why the controversy persists — law, evidence and politics
The question hinges on proving specific intent to destroy a protected group in whole or in part — a high legal bar under the Genocide Convention. Human‑rights reports and UN commissions assert that statements by Israeli officials plus patterns of conduct meet that intent threshold; critics point to defensive rationales, counterterrorism context and differing interpretations of evidence [3] [2] [5]. Political alignments, sanctions decisions and public declarations mirror these legal disagreements: some states act on NGO and UN findings, others await or emphasise court determinations [8] [5].
6. What this means for readers and policymakers
There are now formal institutional findings (Amnesty, UN commissions, OHCHR) and coordinated state responses that treat Gaza as the site of genocide allegations, while legal adjudication at the ICJ remains a central, unresolved process pursued by South Africa [1] [2] [3] [5]. Consumers of this reporting should distinguish: (a) political or moral recognitions by states and sub‑state bodies; (b) NGO and UN investigative findings; and (c) pending judicial rulings that carry different legal consequences [7] [8] [9].
Limitations and sourcing note: this summary draws only on the provided reporting and compiled sources; available sources do not list an exhaustive roster of every state that has formally recognised genocide nor do they cover subsequent actions beyond the cited materials [7] [8] [1].