Recently we commemorated the massacre of Srebrenica, where thousands of Bosniak boys and men were killed. The massacre is generally recognized today as a genocide according to the definition by the UN of 1948. We speak of a genocide if there is an „intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.“ To call a war crime a genocide means a qualification because of its special evil character and long term consequences, as also many national criminal codes know similar qualifications of murder. Unfortunately in spite of the Holocaust and Srebenica, other genocidal crimes have taken place since then.
Already for many years, but in particular since the vicious attack of Hamas on October 7th, there is a lively debate amongst Jewish experts about how to define the many punitive actions of the Israeli government and the Israeli Defence Forces I.D.F. against Palestinian militant groups and the general population. Are these actions and especially the reactions to the brutal Hamas killings and hostage-takings justified and measured reactions or are they of a genocidal character? In addition some ask if it is even possible, that Israel can be accused of committing war crimes and especially a genocide due to its founding out of the Holocaust.
So the question to be dealt by this blog is, if Israel’s actions would also be one of the genocidal crimes committed after Srebenica, the genocide we recently commemorated. In this respect I do not go into the legal issues, as the International Criminal Court investigates Israel’s actions in Gaza. I want to demonstrate the open debate amidst the world wide Jewish experts and try to analyze and evaluate their arguments.
A sensitive issue
To discuss accusations against Israel in a world where we still find a lot of anti-semitism one has to be extremely sensitive. In addition it is obvious that too speak about a possible genocide perpetrated by Israel, somebody from Austria must be particularly careful, even someone who supported and initiated activities of Jewish life and in particular the commemoration of the Holocaust - like the Holocaust memorial - in Vienna during my time as City Councillor. Special sensitivity is necessary because of the past crimes committed by Austrians - especially during the Nazi time - but also because Israel is regionally embedded in an environment which was and still is often hostile to its existence.
When visiting Israel on behalf of the European Parliament I experienced on several occasions skepticism. My criticism of specific Israel’s policies was met with the accusation of expressing antisemitiic sentiments. Sometimes these accusation were clearly politically motivated. But I could also experience exciting and fruitful discussions and mutual exchanges with Israeli Jews who wanted a peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians.
Anyway, any attempt to question Israel’s existence or to destroy Israel on the one hand, but also the lack of willingness to principally accept the right of Palestinians for a state of their own - however it could be realized - on the other hand, is unacceptable for me. The same is true for the killings of Jews and others by the Hamas terrorists and the killings of Gazans by Israel beyond self-defence. I still believe, that it is possible for Jews and Arabs to share the region together in peace and cooperation - although it be becomes more and more difficult. The more Gazans will be killed, the more people, especially children will be wounded and mutilated and the more hostages die, the more it will be difficult to look into a common future.
I know when I see it
Recently one of the most prominent Holocaust scholar, Omer Bartov wrote in the New York Times an article under the heading: “I’m a genocide scholar. I know when I see it.” Studying carefully Israel’s reaction to the Hamas attack he writes: „My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people……this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.” ( New York Times International Edition, July 19/20th 2025 ) Omer Bartov has grown up in a Zionist home, served in Israel‘s I.D.F. and is one of the worlds most recognized Holocaust experts. One important book in this respect is his “Genocide, the Holocaust, and Israel-Palestine” published in 2023.
His aim is not to discredit Israel‘s government or even Israel as such. He fears on the contrary, that “the moral and historical credit which the Jewish state has drawn on until now is running out.“ And in addition he fears:“ that in the aftermath of the Gaza genocide, it will no longer be possible to continue teaching and researching the Holocaust in the same manner as before.“ This, because the Holocaust is used by the official authorities in Israel as a cover-up for the crimes of the I.F.D.
Shira Klein in „The Growing Rift between Holocaust Scholars over Israel/Palestine” makes clear, that there is a strong controversy splitting the Holocaust research community. Some as Daniel Goldberg just see a direct line between the Palestinians and Nazi Germany: “Europe had exported its classical racist and Nazi anti-semitism to Arab countries, which they applied to Israel and Jews in general….Then the Arab countries re-exported the new hybrid demonology back to Europe and, using the United Nations and other international institutions, to other countries around the world.” For Goldberg “hostility to Israel is not and never was, based on Israel’s policies.”
An exception for Jews?
Some argue, that because of past crimes based on anti-semitism Jews and Israel specifically can not be treated as other peoples and states. In this respect Henry Feingold underlines „history had made an exception of the Jews, who’s need for a homeland was a matter of life and death.” ( Henry Feingold, American Jewish Political Culture and the Liberal Persuasion) In his approach - so Shira Klein - “Israel could only ever be a victim, never a perpetrator, and when criticism arose, it simply had to be antisemitism.”
In this direction argue Norman J.W. Goda and Jeffry Herf in “Holocaust Historians, the Genocide Charge, and Gaza”. They particularly criticize Raz Segel of Stockton University and Omer Bartov for their use of citations of Israeli politicians and militaries which underline their arguments, that there is a clear intention of genocide. Indeed, Omer Bartov uses several remarks of Prime Minister Netanyahu and other government officials about the fighting against “human animals” and about the necessity of “total annihilation” and of “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth” as proof of the intent, which is necessary to define actions as a genocide.
Goda and Herf interpret in contradiction to Omer Bartov and others, the Israeli actions as a necessary answer to the Hamas attack and define in reverse their attack as a genocide: “On October 7th, Hamas engaged in the deliberate and premeditated targeting of Jewish civilians with no apparent military objective in mind. Israel has indeed deprived Gazans of necessities and driven them from their homes during the current war. But blockades in wartime in service of a strategic aim are not illegal and when civilians flee from a war zone after being warned to do so, it does not add up to deportation …” And the warning of Gazans to flee to the South is a proof, that Israel has no intent for a genocide.
In his article “The Genocide Libel” Norman J.W. Goda argues, that the “genocide accusations against Israel are different”. Israel “has been charged with genocide throughout its existence”, this accusation “deploys a range of antisemitic tropes” and “what makes the genocidal libel particularly dangerous is the association of all Jews with the crime.” What is interesting with these and similar arguments, is that they are not dealing with the Israeli actions as such but with possible consequences of the accusation - not asking if is true or not. Furthermore one could also argue that to offer Israel an exception of charging it with war crimes and a general impunity is more in danger of strengthening antisemitism then a policy to treat all countries equally.
The attitude of defending Israel’s actions without discussing the details of the war, the intentions of the Israeli civil and military authorities and independently of the killings and woundings and mutilations of children and women is also connected with the special definition of the Holocaust. For these researchers and experts the Holocaust is a unique event and not comparable to any other genocide. Consequently it gives Israel a unique position and the “state of Holocaust survivors and representatives of the Jewish people, had to be uniquely good and uniquely protected.” ( Shira Klein ) In the end - according to this interpretation of the Holocaust- Israel could principally never be guilty of genocide.
Holocaust/genocide used for legitimation?
Those who represent this attitude and conviction are opposed by those who criticize that the Holocaust is used to legitimize all of Israel’s policies, especially those which oppress Palestinians. There is also a long list of these representatives of the Holocaust and genocide scholars. And while Daniel Goldberg draws a line between the Palestinians and Nazi-Germany, Amos Goldberg connects the genocide of the Herrero in German-colonized Namibia to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians: “The case of the Herrero revolt should serve as horrific warning for us in Israel, which has already known one Nakba in its history.” ( Amos Goldberg, The ‘Jewish Narrative’ in the Yad Vasenmalerei Global Holocaust Museum”)
One can argue, that the Holocaust with its comprehensive and industrialized way of killing Jews has a unique horrible character. But that does not mean that the state which was founded - inter alia - as an answer to the incomparable Holocaust cannot commit a genocide and other war crimes. Maybe for the victims of the actions of Israel and the Israeli Defence Forces the character of these actions is irrelevant. It is the extreme human suffering what counts.
But it is not irrelevant for the role of international law and justice. And if Israel’s action have a genocidal character and the relevant accusations can be easily neglected by Israel’s authorities, it will be repeatedly done so by other states. There can be no international law with exceptions for some countries due to their past. And as the Holocaust should not be used to legitimize Israeli actions these actions and their acceptance in some Western circles should not be used for legitimizing any crimes and any genocide. However Israel‘s actions are evaluated and defined, all should agree, that all states should be judged on the basis of the same laws and rules.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.