Brett Stephens: There is No Genocide in Gaza
There is no Genocide in Gaza and there never has been. Further, the fault for any suffering being endured lies squarely at the door of Hamas, who could end the war at any moment.
Twitter
In his July 22 *New York Times* opinion piece, “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza,” Bret Stephens wades into one of the most hotly debated issues of late: whether Israel’s military actions in Gaza constitute genocide. The article has ignited fierce discussion, with supporters praising its legal clarity and critics decrying it as dismissive of Palestinian suffering.
For those seeking to understand a perspective that challenges the genocide label through a legal and military lens, Stephens’ piece offers a provocative entry point, one that demands careful scrutiny, not just buying the Hamas propaganda shoved in our faces over and over again..
Stephens’ Core Argument
Stephens, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist known for his conservative-leaning foreign policy commentary, anchors his argument in the United Nations Convention on Genocide, which defines genocide as acts committed with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” He asserts that Israel’s actions in Gaza, while devastating, do not meet this threshold.
Citing the Gaza Health Ministry’s reported death toll of approximately 60,000, Stephens argues that the figure is far lower than what a genocidal campaign, given Israel’s military might, would produce. He points to Israel’s operational choices, such as issuing evacuation warnings, conducting ground operations that risk its own soldiers, and avoiding heavy strikes where hostages may be held, as evidence against genocidal intent.
In contrast, he explains that on Hamas’s October 7, Hamas slaughtered over 1,200 Israelis, deliberately targeting civilians based on identity, aligning it closer to the genocide definition. Stephens’ legal lens is narrow by design, focusing on the specific criterion of intent. He dismisses inflammatory statements by Israeli officials, such as calls to “erase” Gaza, as “vengeful sound bites” rather than policy directives.
His military analysis suggests that Israel’s actions reflect a counterterrorism strategy, however brutal, rather than a systematic extermination campaign. This framing challenges the genocide label by emphasizing legal and operational distinctions, inviting readers to open their eyes.
Why Listen to Him:
Legal Clarity: By grounding his argument in the UN’s genocide definition, Stephens provides a structured framework for assessing a term often used rhetorically. This can help readers navigate the emotional weight of the debate and focus on specific criteria, such as intent, which is central to international law.
Military Context: Stephens’ analysis of Israel’s operational tactics, evacuation warnings, targeted strikes, and restraint in hostage zones, offers insight into how military strategy is used to argue against genocidal intent.
Counterpoint to Prevailing Narratives: As a conservative voice in a liberal-leaning outlet, Stephens challenges what some see as a rush to label Israel’s actions as genocide. His piece resonates with those skeptical of mainstream media or international bodies like the UN, which have faced accusations of bias from pro-Israel advocates.
On platforms like X, supporters of Stephens’ view argue that his piece cuts through hyperbolic accusations, with posts citing the legal definition and Israel’s restraint as key points. Outlets like *Israel Hayom* have echoed his reasoning, emphasizing that the casualty figures and military tactics do not align with genocidal campaigns like those in Rwanda or Bosnia.
The Counterarguments
Yet, Stephens’ piece has drawn sharp criticism for its perceived omissions and tone. Critics argue that his legal lens is overly reductive, ignoring evidence that genocide scholars and international bodies cite to support the genocide claim. Omer Bartov, a Holocaust and genocide scholar, in his July 15, 2025, *New York Times* piece, “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It,” contends that Israel’s actions reflect an intent to render Gaza uninhabitable for Palestinians.
Critics also challenge Stephens’ reliance on the Gaza Health Ministry’s 60,000 death toll, which some estimate understates the true figure.