As world leaders converged in New York for the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in late September 2025, the question of whether Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza constitutes genocide erupted into the global spotlight—fuelled by mounting evidence, legal rulings, and a fiery speech from Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
Petro’s address on September 23, 2025, was anything but routine. According to numerous outlets, including NPR and Newsweek, he delivered one of the most radical speeches in the Assembly’s recent memory, declaring, “Humanity must stop the genocide in Gaza; it cannot allow another day of genocide, nor can it let Netanyahu and his allies in the United States and Europe get away with it.” He went even further, calling for the creation of an international armed force—distinct from traditional UN peacekeepers—to intervene in Gaza and halt what he termed a “genocide.”
His words did not fall on deaf ears. The U.S. delegation, bristling at Petro’s harsh criticism of both Israeli policy and the Trump administration’s actions in Latin America, walked out in protest. A U.S. State Department spokesperson later told El Tiempo newspaper, “The actions of our delegation on Tuesday speak for themselves.”
Petro’s proposal came amid a growing international consensus that the devastation in Gaza has crossed the threshold into genocide. Earlier in September, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel’s war on Gaza amounts to genocide—a conclusion echoed by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. As Newsweek reported, these bodies agreed that Israel’s conduct—including mass killings, siege-induced starvation, the destruction of hospitals, and incendiary rhetoric—fit the criteria set forth by the 1948 Genocide Convention.
The legal definition of genocide, as established after World War II, is clear: acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These acts include killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to destroy a population. Gaza’s grim statistics are now well known: more than 65,000 Palestinians killed, over 90 percent of its 2.2 million residents displaced, and most of the territory reduced to ruins. Half the population faces famine, and senior Israeli officials have reportedly spoken of erasing Gaza “from the face of the Earth.”
Comparisons to past atrocities abound. The international community has previously recognized genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, Darfur, Myanmar, and against the Uyghurs in China—often after much debate and delay. As Newsweek pointed out, Gaza “resembles these other examples not only in scale but in the elements of intent and conduct.”
But proving genocide is never straightforward. As NPR explained, the crux of the legal debate is intent. Shannon Fyfe, a legal scholar at Washington and Lee University, noted, “Proving intent tends to be the most difficult part of any criminal case. The ICJ says genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference from the available evidence.” Some Israeli officials argue their actions are aimed at destroying Hamas, not Palestinians as a group. Former Israeli military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin called the genocide charge “nonsense,” insisting the goal is to defeat Hamas. Others, including Israeli and Jewish genocide scholars like Raz Segal and Omer Bartov, have changed their minds over the past year—citing mounting evidence of mass civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and restrictions on humanitarian aid.
“Deliberately making it impossible for Palestinians to live as a group in Gaza crosses the legal threshold for genocide,” said Dov Waxman, a professor of Israel studies at UCLA, who revised his earlier stance after Israel broke a ceasefire and resumed its offensive in March 2025. Sonia Boulos, a professor of international human rights law, argued that rhetoric dehumanizing Palestinians and calls for Gaza’s destruction “are not only genocidal in nature—they help explain the apocalyptic reality currently unfolding in Gaza.”
The debate is not confined to legal circles. In the United States, public opinion is shifting. An August 2025 Economist/YouGov poll found that 69% of Democrats and 44% of independents now describe Israel’s actions as genocide, up sharply from earlier in the year. Prominent U.S. politicians from both parties, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have used the term publicly. Meanwhile, in Israel, a March 2025 survey cited by Haaretz found that 82% of Jewish Israelis polled supported the expulsion of Gazans, and nearly half backed killing all Palestinians in “enemy cities captured by the Israeli army.”
For Palestinians, the debate is painfully personal. Laila Elhaddad, a Palestinian American author whose family has suffered immense losses, told NPR, “It felt like the ground was moving beneath my feet, as if everything that made my parents’ home familiar was being systematically erased.” She is among the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of enabling genocide in Gaza—a case that was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds but acknowledged the plausibility of genocide under international law.
Petro’s speech also touched on broader themes of international accountability and the failures of diplomacy. He lambasted what he called the “paralysis imposed by power politics,” arguing that “diplomacy has already played its part in the case of Gaza; it has failed to resolve the situation.” He called for a revolution of the people to address not only the crisis in Gaza but also the looming threat of climate change, warning that the world has just 10 years to avert irreversible catastrophe. His vision included an energy transformation away from fossil fuels, a planned economy, and a global movement for survival.
In the wake of his address, Colombia doubled down on its pro-Palestinian stance, opening a diplomatic mission in Ramallah and leading a July 2025 agreement with 12 countries to halt arms purchases from Israel and seek accountability for war crimes. These moves followed a series of earlier actions: sending humanitarian aid to Gaza, withdrawing its ambassador from Israel, and supporting South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
Yet, despite the growing chorus of legal experts, rights organizations, and even some Israeli voices, Israel and its allies—particularly the United States—continue to reject the genocide label. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dismissed the accusations as deflections, and the Israeli legal team argues that their actions target legitimate military objectives, not civilians.
The implications of this impasse are profound. As Newsweek observed, “If the clearest case in decades of a population being targeted for destruction… fails to trigger accountability, then what remains of international law’s deterrent function?” The world’s response to Gaza, many argue, will determine whether “never again” is a meaningful promise or just another empty slogan.
In a week where the stakes could hardly be higher, the debate over genocide in Gaza has become a litmus test for the credibility of the international order—and for the conscience of the world itself.
