If You Chant “Free Palestine” You Are an Idiot

There is no genocide in Gaza. There is a tragic, vicious, human war—a war that began with terror and the slaughter of innocent Jews, continued for the sake of hostages, and paused the moment they came home. Israel’s goal was not destruction but deliverance.

What constitutes genocide?

The term genocide was introduced in 1944 by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe the systematic destruction of national, ethnic and other groups, particularly during the Holocaust.

The United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention in 1948, establishing genocide as an international crime.

Under the convention, genocide involves certain prohibited acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

This requirement of specific intent is central to Israel’s defense against accusations of genocide.

Military analysts, including urban warfare specialist John Spencer, have argued that the scale of civilian casualties and physical destruction, however devastating, does not independently establish genocidal intent.

They contend that Israel’s stated objective has been to dismantle Hamas following the organization’s Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, rather than eliminate Palestinians as a people.

The prime minister, defense minister, the chief of staff are saying, ” Our” fight is not with the people of Gaza. It is with Hamas. And all the mountain of evidence of what Israel is doing to preserve infrastructure, civilian life, to provide services – both medical. I mean, the number of field hospitals, the number of water pipes, the amount of aid. All of these things are contradictions.

Food and supplies cannot get to the Palestinian people–nobody would deny that Hamas was taking the aides, the armed guards on top of the trucks, and that Hamas was purposely wanting there to be a humanitarian crisis. There were a thousand trucks worth of supplies waiting to be picked up and couldn’t be, according to the United Nations, because of Hamas.

Israel’s case: A war against Hamas

Israel’s government has consistently maintained that its military operations in Gaza are directed against Hamas, the armed Palestinian organization responsible for the October 2023 attacks that killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel and resulted in the taking of hostages.

Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union.

Israel argues that Hamas deliberately operates within civilian neighborhoods, maintains underground tunnel networks and places military infrastructure near or within buildings ordinarily protected under international humanitarian law.

Israeli officials say these tactics complicate efforts to distinguish combatants from civilians and increase the likelihood of civilian casualties during military operations.

Supporters of Israel’s position also point to evacuation warnings, telephone calls, text messages, leaflets and designated evacuation routes as evidence that the Israeli military has attempted to reduce civilian harm.

They argue that such precautions are inconsistent with an organized campaign intended to exterminate a population.

Military analysts emphasize that civilian casualties, even on a large scale, do not automatically constitute genocide.

Humanitarian assistance and military responsibility

Israel and its supporters continue to cite humanitarian assistance delivered during the conflict as evidence against claims of genocidal intent.

The Israeli government says it has facilitated substantial shipments of food, medicine and other supplies, coordinated medical evacuations, and supported vaccination and essential infrastructure programs.

Supporters argue that these measures demonstrate efforts to sustain civilian life while continuing military operations against Hamas.

Critics dispute whether the assistance has been adequate, accessible or consistently delivered to those most in need.

Humanitarian organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about barriers to aid distribution, insecurity, displacement and the breakdown of civilian infrastructure.

The existence of humanitarian assistance does not, by itself, resolve allegations of genocide or other violations of international law. Likewise, severe humanitarian suffering does not automatically establish the specific intent required for a genocide conviction.

Both the conduct of military operations and the treatment of civilians remain subject to legal scrutiny.

The role of Hamas

Its October 2023 attacks involved the deliberate killing and abduction of civilians, acts that constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Investigations have also documented evidence of conflict-related sexual violence associated with the attacks and captivity.

Israel argues that Hamas’s continued military activity, use of tunnels and operations within populated areas have prolonged the conflict and placed Palestinian civilians at greater risk.

Israel did not begin this war; Hamas did, with the mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of more than 1,200 civilians on October 7, 2023. The war’s objective was immediately clear: to dismantle a terrorist army and to free the hostages it took. The fighting ended as soon as those hostages were returned. If the aim were extermination, the killing would have continued. The logic of the war itself refutes the charge.

A genocidal state does not drop leaflets warning civilians to evacuate. It does not open humanitarian corridors or pause operations for aid and prisoner exchanges. It does not call on its enemy to surrender in order to save lives. These are not the acts of a nation seeking to destroy a people, but of one struggling—however imperfectly—to uphold its humanity its humanity while defending its existence.

And yet the word persists. On campuses, in marches, and across digital platforms, genocide has become a ritual incantation: a way to brand Jews as monsters and to invert the meaning of justice itself. The people who shout it loudest rarely cite the Genocide Convention or engage with evidence. The accusation is not analytical; it is irrational. It implies that Jewish survival, rather than Jewish destruction, is the crime.

Language matters. When genocide becomes a slogan, not a legal category; when “resistance” replaces murder; when victimhood and villainy trade places—our ability to reason collapses.

About the Author

Wayne Creed

Administrator

View All Posts