Has Israel Taken Sufficient Measures to Address Alleged Incitement to Genocide?
In November, Nissim Vaturi, the deputy speaker of Israel’s Knesset, made headlines with a controversial post on X (formerly Twitter) demanding to “Burn Gaza now, nothing less!” The platform quickly intervened, blocking his account until he removed the post. Vaturi complied, yet offered no apology. This statement is one of many inflammatory remarks from prominent Israelis amid ongoing military operations in Gaza, following Hamas’s deadly assault on Israel on October 7.
Vaturi’s post from that day, declaring a unified aim to “erase the Gaza Strip from the face of the Earth,” remains visible on X and has been cited by South Africa in its legal case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case accuses Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza—a claim Israel dismisses as “unfounded” and “biased.”
In January, the ICJ issued an interim order requiring Israel to prevent public statements inciting genocide. Although the ICJ lacks enforcement power, Israel agreed to submit a report detailing its efforts to investigate and prosecute potential instances of incitement. The report was submitted in February, but its contents have not been made public.
Some legal experts argue that Israel’s efforts are insufficient. Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, claims, “Israelis who incite genocide or use genocidal rhetoric are immune from prosecution.” He notes that proving incitement to genocide—a crime under both international and Israeli law—is challenging. The definition of genocide involves acts intended to destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part, making the distinction between incitement to genocide, violence, or racism, and protected free speech, a complex issue.
The BBC has examined several statements made since the ICJ’s order to determine if they could violate the ruling, consulting legal experts for their assessments. While this judgment targeted Israel, the BBC also reviewed language used by Hamas officials regarding their intent to replicate their October 7 attack.
Controversial Statements and Actions by Israeli Officials
Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has advocated for policies encouraging Palestinians to leave Gaza, suggesting Israelis should settle there instead. Leading an ultranationalist party criticized for anti-Arab policies, Ben-Gvir has prior convictions for inciting racism and supporting terrorism. Following the ICJ’s January ruling, he proposed encouraging Palestinian emigration from Gaza and instituting the death penalty for terrorists, framing such emigration as voluntary.
Ihsan Adel, founder of the pro-Palestinian organization Law for Palestine, views these calls as part of “ongoing ethnic cleansing in Gaza” and potentially incitement to genocide—a characterization Israel rejects. Not all agree with Adel’s interpretation. Anne Herzberg, a legal advisor at NGO Monitor, asserts, “I’m definitely not going to defend such statements, but they do not rise to the level of genocide.”
Neither Ben-Gvir nor Vaturi responded to the BBC’s request for comment.
Statements from Israeli Soldiers and Religious Leaders
South Africa’s case at the ICJ highlights the link between political rhetoric and statements by Israeli soldiers. A YouTube video from late 2023 shows Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers chanting, “Occupy, expel and settle,” among other videos celebrating Gaza’s destruction post-January ICJ ruling. The IDF stated that it investigates such videos and handles any inappropriate expressions or behaviors accordingly.
Religious leaders have also been scrutinized. Rabbi Eliyahu Mali, a head of a yeshiva funded by Israel’s Ministry of Defense, drew attention for a speech citing a 12th-century Jewish scholar on holy wars, suggesting no one in Gaza should be left alive. Despite clarifying that his references to ancient laws were not meant to apply today and emphasizing adherence to state laws that prohibit harming civilians, his comments have led to calls for investigation on suspicion of incitement to genocide, violence, and terrorism.
Media Statements and Their Implications
Some Israeli media have also aired statements considered by some as promoting extreme views. On Channel 14, a journalist stated in February that Gazans “can starve to death,” and in April, another on Channel 12 claimed, “There are no innocents in the Gaza Strip.” Herzberg notes that while these statements reflect a “disturbing lack of empathy,” they do not amount to incitement to genocide.
Accusations Against Hamas
While the ICJ’s ruling focused on Israel, accusations of genocidal intent have also been directed at Hamas. The group’s leaders have repeatedly echoed sentiments from their charter advocating for the elimination of Israel through “jihad and armed struggle.” In November, Hamas officials voiced intentions to repeat the October 7 attacks, which killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians.
Tal Becker, legal advisor to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, highlights the “annihilationist language” in Hamas’s rhetoric, which has not led to ICJ proceedings as Hamas is not a recognized state. However, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Hamas leaders for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Efforts and Challenges in Regulating Incitement
Israel’s authorities have acknowledged that incitement to harm civilians may constitute a criminal offense. However, Haaretz recently reported that the state prosecutor recommended against criminal investigations of senior public figures who have made calls to harm Gaza civilians. The final decision remains with the attorney general.
As the ICJ moves towards a final ruling, the situation remains dire, with over 40,000 Palestinians reported killed in Gaza since October, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
