Top legal scholars, UN officials, and genocide experts have said it clearly: what's happening in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. Read the International Court of Justice order.
Genocide is not just a tragedy. It’s a crime — one the international community is legally and morally obligated to stop.
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
The following acts shall be punishable:
Under the Genocide Convention (1948), every country that signed and ratified the treaty has a legal duty to prevent genocide, not just to punish it after the fact.
The International Court of Justice confirmed in 2007 in a ruling Bosnia v. Serbia that states have an obligation to act when they become aware of the risk of genocide — even if they’re not directly involved..
In January 2024, the ICJ ordered Israel to take urgent steps to prevent genocide in Gaza. These orders are legally binding. And if genocide is later confirmed, countries helping Israel — through weapons, funding, or political support — could be seen as complicit.
That means no government can stay silent.
And you have the right — and power — to remind them of their duty.
According to the International Court of Justice in the 2007 Bosnia v. Serbia ruling, states are required to:
Use all means reasonably available to them
Act promptly and independently to prevent genocide
Avoid complicity, including political or military support
Influence other states or actors involved, especially if they have close relations
Not ignore early warning signs or credible information
A state must "employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible".
This means that a state cannot just say “we didn’t do it.”
It must actively work to stop genocide when it sees the risk in all means it has — or be held responsible for failing to do so.
In 2000, the EU and Israel signed an Association Agreement — a formal trade deal that makes the EU Israel’s biggest trading partner, accounting for around 30% of Israel’s total trade.
This agreement includes a Human Rights Clause — Article 2 — which makes respect for human rights and democratic principles an “essential element” of the deal.
Under EU law, if one party systematically violates human rights, the agreement can be suspended. That’s not just a possibility — it becomes a legal obligation, especially when there’s a risk of genocide.
In June 2025, leaked EU documents acknowledged that “there are indications” Israel is in breach of Article 2.
However, some member states — including Czechia, Germany, and Hungary — have blocked joint EU action, despite their obligations under the Genocide Convention.
While some legal experts argue that suspending the agreement requires only a qualified majority vote, the dominant interpretation within EU institutions is that unanimity is needed. This means that even a few opposing governments can prevent the EU from acting — and in doing so, they risk becoming complicit if genocide is later confirmed.
No other international actor — not the UN, not the US — has as much direct economic leverage over Israel as the European Union. By suspending this trade agreement, the EU could immediately apply lawful, non-violent pressure — and potentially help prevent further atrocities.