As the conflict in Gaza continues into its second year, scholarly debate over its classification under international law has intensified. Among the most prominent voices in this discussion is Omer Bartov, an Israeli-born historian and professor of European history at Brown University, whose recent work examines the ideological foundations of state violence in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bartov’s arguments, particularly those presented in his 2023 book Genocide, the Holocaust and Israel-Palestine: First Peoples, Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Genocide, have drawn both academic attention and public scrutiny for asserting that elements of Zionist ideology have contributed to what he describes as genocidal processes in Gaza.
His claims come amid ongoing investigations by international bodies into alleged violations of international humanitarian law during Israel’s military operations in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks. While Bartov does not assert that Israel’s actions constitute a legally proven genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention, he argues that a “state ideology” rooted in certain interpretations of Zionism has created conditions conducive to genocidal violence. This perspective has sparked debate not only in academic circles but also among policymakers, journalists, and human rights organizations assessing the legal and moral dimensions of the conflict.
To understand Bartov’s position, It’s essential to examine his scholarly background and the framework he uses to analyze state violence. Born in Israel in 1954, Bartov served in the Israel Defense Forces before pursuing academic work in Europe and the United States. He is widely recognized for his research on Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and genocide studies, with notable works including Hitler’s Army and The Jew in the Cinema. His expertise in the mechanics of ideological violence informs his approach to contemporary conflicts, where he emphasizes the role of long-term narratives in shaping state behavior.
In his 2023 book, Bartov contends that Zionism, as a national movement, encompasses a spectrum of interpretations—some of which, he argues, have evolved into exclusionary ideologies that deny the historical presence and rights of Palestinians. He traces this to early 20th-century debates within Zionist thought, citing figures such as Ze’ev Jabotinsky, whose concept of an “iron wall” advocated for military strength as a prerequisite for coexistence. Bartov suggests that over time, such ideas have been interpreted in ways that justify territorial expansion and military dominance, particularly in the context of the West Bank and Gaza.
He does not claim that all Zionists or Israeli officials advocate genocide, but rather that certain strands of ideological thinking have contributed to a climate where mass violence against civilians is perceived as permissible or even necessary. This, he argues, mirrors patterns seen in other settler-colonial societies where indigenous populations are systematically displaced or destroyed. Bartov insists that his analysis is not an indictment of Jewish people or Judaism, but a critique of specific political ideologies that have gained influence within state institutions.
These assertions have been met with significant criticism from scholars, Israeli officials, and advocacy groups who argue that equating Zionism with genocidal intent misrepresents both the diversity of thought within Jewish nationalism and the complex realities of the conflict. Critics contend that Hamas’s October 7 attack—which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people in Israel, according to Israeli authorities—was the immediate catalyst for Israel’s military response, and that framing the conflict through a genocidal lens overlooks the security imperatives cited by the Israeli government.
The Israeli government has consistently maintained that its actions in Gaza are aimed at dismantling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities, not at destroying the Palestinian people. International humanitarian law experts note that determining whether actions constitute genocide requires proof of specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group—a threshold that remains legally contested in international courts.
As of mid-2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is hearing a case brought by South Africa alleging that Israel is violating the Genocide Convention in its conduct of the war in Gaza. Israel has rejected the allegations, calling them baseless and politically motivated. The ICJ has not yet issued a final ruling, though in January 2024 it ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocidal acts, improve humanitarian access, and prevent incitement to genocide—orders Israel says it has begun to implement.
Meanwhile, United Nations agencies and human rights organizations have documented extensive civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza. According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, which operates under Hamas but whose figures are frequently cited by the UN and WHO, over 34,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, with a significant proportion being women and children. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that more than 70% of those killed are civilians, though Israel disputes these figures, claiming that many of the deceased are combatants and that Hamas embeds fighters in civilian infrastructure.
These numbers remain difficult to verify independently due to restricted access and the ongoing nature of hostilities. The World Health Organization has repeatedly called for unimpeded access to assess health conditions and casualties, while emphasizing that all parties must comply with international law. Bartov does not rely on casualty figures alone to support his argument; instead, he focuses on rhetoric, policy documents, and military orders that he interprets as reflecting an intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza.
He points to statements by Israeli officials during the early weeks of the war—such as remarks by then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant referring to Palestinians as “human animals” and calls for a “complete siege” of Gaza—as evidence of dehumanizing language that precedes genocidal violence. While such statements have been widely reported by international media, including BBC News and Reuters, Israeli officials have since clarified or walked back some remarks, asserting they were taken out of context or reflected frustration rather than policy.
Bartov’s work also engages with broader theoretical frameworks in genocide studies, particularly the concept of “settler colonial genocide,” which examines how colonial settlements seek not only to displace but to eliminate indigenous populations to establish permanent control. Scholars such as Patrick Wolfe and Lorenzo Veracini have influenced this line of thought, arguing that the logic of elimination is inherent in certain settler-colonial projects. Bartov applies this lens to the history of Zionist settlement in Palestine, arguing that while early Zionist pioneers sought coexistence, later iterations increasingly embraced exclusion.
He acknowledges that Zionism also includes traditions of cultural renewal, social democracy, and peaceful coexistence—citing figures like Ahad Ha’am and Martin Buber—but contends that these have been overshadowed in recent decades by nationalist currents that prioritize territorial control over democratic inclusion. This shift, he argues, became more pronounced after the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel gained control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, leading to the establishment of settlements that are considered illegal under international law by the UN and the ICJ.
The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has been a focal point of international criticism. According to B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, over 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a population that has grown steadily despite international objections. The UN Security Council has repeatedly affirmed that settlements violate international law, most recently in Resolution 2334 (2016), which passed with the United States abstaining.
Bartov does not claim that settlement policy alone constitutes genocide, but argues that it is part of a broader ideology of territorial maximalism that undermines the possibility of a viable Palestinian state and contributes to systemic violence. He warns that when state institutions endorse narratives that deny the rights or humanity of a population, the risk of mass atrocities increases—a pattern he sees repeated across historical cases from Namibia to Rwanda to Bosnia.
His scholarship has found resonance among some critics of Israel’s policies, particularly in academic and activist circles concerned with decolonization, indigenous rights, and the ethics of military occupation. However, it has also been rejected by many mainstream historians and Jewish communal organizations, who argue that applying the genocide framework to Israel distorts both Jewish history and the nature of the conflict. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC) have publicly criticized Bartov’s comparisons, stating that they fuel antisemitism by singling out Israel for unique condemnation.
In response, Bartov maintains that his intent is not to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, but to examine how ideological currents within any state can lead to violations of human rights. He draws parallels to critiques of other nations—such as the United States’ treatment of Native Americans or Australia’s treatment of Aboriginal peoples—where historical narratives have been reevaluated to acknowledge past injustices without denying national legitimacy.
The debate over how to characterize the violence in Gaza remains unresolved, both legally and morally. While no international court has yet ruled that Israel has committed genocide, the ICJ case continues, and UN special rapporteurs have repeatedly warned of the risk of genocide amid the destruction and deprivation in Gaza. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, has stated that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the threshold for genocide may be met, a position that has drawn both support and sharp rebuttal.
As the war continues, with ceasefire efforts repeatedly stalled and humanitarian conditions deteriorating, the need for nuanced, evidence-based analysis becomes ever more urgent. Bartov’s work contributes to this effort by encouraging scrutiny not only of battlefield conduct but of the ideas that shape it. Whether or not his conclusions are accepted, his insistence on examining ideology as a driver of violence adds a key dimension to public discourse.
For readers seeking to follow developments, the International Court of Justice provides live updates and documents related to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also maintains a dedicated page on its Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including reports and statements on alleged violations of international law.
Understanding complex conflicts requires more than counting casualties or tracking troop movements—it demands engagement with the beliefs, histories, and ideologies that drive human actions. In that spirit, scholarly inquiry, even when controversial, plays a vital role in helping societies confront difficult truths.
We invite our readers to share thoughtful, respectful comments below and to share this article with others interested in the intersection of history, politics, and human rights. Your perspectives help deepen the conversation.