I’m a wishy-washy liberal of the Stephen Fry variety—emotionally allergic to absolutism, and annoyingly attached to being precise with words, even when it gets me eye-rolls, as it often does.
Yes, yes, no one cares what an astronomer thinks about politics and it makes no difference. But it may make conversations with me easier.
So, Gaza. Here are my thoughts, dear friends, and you owe me a penny.
(Longish post, again. TLDR at the end.)
1. The IAGS resolution: what it is (and what it isn’t)
IAGS, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, recently passed a resolution calling what’s happening in Gaza a genocide. It went through a 30-day ballot and a majority of those who voted (about a ¼ of all its members) supported it. It was reported all over the media.
But : this is not a court ruling or the result of a peer-reviewed forensic investigation. IAGS membership is broad—students, activists, educators, scholars, even artists. No credential checks. You can join for as low as $30. Think of it as a professional association vote (of scholars, flutists, and flower arrangers), not an ICJ verdict. Does it carry some weight? Sure, I guess. It’s a data point with huge uncertainties. Put it there, with the rest of the data points.
2. Why I hesitate to use “genocide” (for now)
This isn’t about minimizing horror—there’s no shortage of that (and not just in Gaza).
But “genocide” has a strict legal meaning. It requires not just mass killing or cruelty, but specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a group as such. That’s a very high evidentiary bar, and intentionally so. Not every atrocity is genocide. Not every war crime is genocide.
The ICJ has ordered provisional measures, saying the case is *plausible* under the Genocide Convention. In legal speak: “this needs scrutiny,” not “this is proven.”
3. What I condemn without hesitation
Hamas’s October 7 massacre and hostage-taking: terrible war crimes, just horrifying.
The massive destruction and civilian death toll in Gaza—and the absence of any serious day-after plan: also horrifying.
Credible allegations of indiscriminate force and starvation as a weapon of war. This should alarm everyone.
Urban warfare is messy, yes—but that does not excuse violations of the laws of war.
All of these things can and should be investigated and prosecuted under international law, without needing to “upgrade” them to genocide for moral weight.
4. Why language matters
Words don’t just describe reality, they shape it. They drive policy, diplomacy, and public opinion.
So who does it hurt if we use “genocide” a little too eagerly?
Well, for one, it risks dulling the concept. If “genocide” gets thrown around too loosely, people start to tune it out, and future victims may struggle to get recognition when the evidence truly fits.
Secondly, it risks politicization. When the term is used prematurely or sloppily, it becomes a rhetorical weapon, not a legal judgment. That can harden positions and make negotiation harder.
Thirdly, it risks backlash. If courts or independent investigations later conclude “war crimes, yes; genocide, no,” then survivors and advocates may feel doubly betrayed—first by the atrocity, then by the narrowing of the charge.
Fourthly, it risks obscuring other crimes. War crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing—these are all serious, prosecutable categories. Over-focusing on genocide can eclipse them, as though anything “less” is somehow less urgent.
On the other hand, if we are never willing to call something genocide, we risk moral cowardice and abandonment of victims.
So I try to be careful. Not timid—careful.
5. Experts don’t agree
Respected voices arguing for genocide include Raz Segal, Omer Bartov, Francesca Albanese, William Schabas, among others.
Respected voices urging caution include Menachem Rosensaft, Deborah Lipstadt, Stefan Talmon, Marko Milanovic, and others.
You may well object and dismiss some of them on this list citing various concerns, but I just mentioned them as examples, there are many more experts to be found on either side. Take your pick.
We can disagree with their conclusions, and acknowledge their individual biases, but we can’t dismiss their expertise. The fact remains that reasonable, well-meaning people, including genocide scholars, still disagree on whether the threshold has been met yet.
6. What would change my mind?
Clearer, corroborated evidence of state-level or command-level intent to destroy a group as such.(1)
A ruling on the merits by the ICJ or ICC.
Independent investigations—transparent, professional, and accountable.
7. So what now?
Support a conditional ceasefire: stop the killing, release the hostages, disarm Hamas, establish security, get aid in. Not necessarily in that order. (I wrote another post on this, I won’t repeat it here.)
Let independent investigators establish the facts. That’s how we get to truth, accountability, and maybe—someday—a political resolution.
Most importantly, whatever we believe personally, ICJ and ICC rulings, when they come, will shape real-world consequences.
TLDR version:
I’m not calling it genocide right now, because that word has a specific legal meaning tied to specific intent, and I’m not convinced that threshold is met—yet. That could change.
What I am sure of is this: war crimes are happening, too many civilians are dying, and justice demands facts, not slogans.
[Your friendly neighborhood astronomer.]
No, not just hateful rhetoric from extremist ministers or fringe voices. Statements like those from Smotrich or Ben Gvir are abhorrent, but unless clearly tied to operational policy, they don’t meet the legal threshold for genocide. Hamas, meanwhile, has openly said October 7 will happen “again and again” until Israel is gone. Should that also count as official Palestinian policy?
