Tragically, ‘genocide’ has become a meaningless word

Two protesters hold a banner that reads “Stop the Genocide in Gaza” in central Jerusalem on Nov. 29, 2024. Photo by Jacob Lazarus / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP) (Photo by JACOB LAZARUS/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Contributing Columnist Jay Michaelson February 17, 2026

One of the hallmarks of our degraded political discourse is the abuse of language. Consider some of the words that have either been drained of meaning or coined in order to mislead: terrorist, racist, fascist, anti-fascist, woke, grooming — and lately, in some cases, antisemitism.

And now, sadly: genocide.

Coined in 1944 to refer to the most heinous of crimes against humanity, the term ‘genocide’ has now become a meaningless shibboleth, a touchstone for virtue-signaling by the Right and Left.

And worst of all, some of Israel’s defenders are now joining in the degradation.

Israel’s critics started it. Israel’s military response to the atrocities of Oct. 7 had barely begun when critics began labeling it a genocide. On Oct. 20, 2023 — just a week into the war — I wrote in this publication that “if ‘genocide’ means any horrible action by one group against another, then it loses its specific moral and legal meaning. It becomes just another word that partisans use against one another.”

That didn’t win me any friends on the Left, but it was true.

But Israel’s tactics and statements of intent changed as the war dragged on. In May 2025, I wrote that Israel’s post-ceasefire tactics, including mass starvation and ‘sociocide’ (the destruction of a society’s physical and social infrastructure), and numerous statements from Israeli politicians in favor of ethnic cleansing, would likely qualify as genocide under the legal definition.

That didn’t win me any friends on the Right or the Center, but it was also true.

In both cases, the question was not whether one supported or opposed Israel’s actions or the suffering of innocent Palestinians. It was whether Israel’s actions were “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

There was almost no evidence of that in October 2023. There was a lot more evidence of it in May 2025. But it is still an open question, one that should be settled in courts of law.

Recently, however, it has become a litmus test. At political events, Democratic candidates are being asked to raise their hands if they think Israel’s actions in Gaza are genocide or not. Yes or No, those are the only choices available. Not “maybe — it has not been decided in court” or “there is evidence on both sides.” Just up or down. Indeed, the candidates are often not even allowed to speak.

And in progressive spaces, if you don’t raise your hand, you’re out.

This is a spectacular display of the ignorance of the mob. Imagine a forum in which candidates are asked to opine on whether someone has committed second-degree murder or manslaughter, or what the correct ratio of contributory negligence is in a multi-party tort action, or the appropriate emissions levels for sulfur dioxide pursuant to the Clean Air Act. That would be preposterous; these are complex legal questions that require careful deliberation based on the meanings of the statutes in question and the evidence presented on both sides.

Like it or not, the crime of genocide is the same.

The Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza were, in my view, unambiguously horrifying. At least 70,000 lives were lost. Cities were destroyed; 80% of homes and 70% of farmlands as well. War crimes and crimes against humanity appear to have been committed many times over. It is extremely hard to justify the magnitude of the military action with reference to legitimate military objectives. And, particularly in 2025, several Israeli leaders made statements that would satisfy the ‘intent’ prong of the Genocide Convention if they were deemed to be speaking on behalf of the Israeli government. Even worse, polls from mid-2025 showed that 82% of Jewish Israelis support expelling all Palestinians from Gaza under threat of violence, which constitutes genocide under the legal definition.

But establishing whether that evidence is sufficient to conclude that genocide has taken place is a job of the International Criminal Court (for states) or International Court of Justice (for individuals), not a politician raising their hand at a campaign event.

And now, as if inspired by the ignorance and oversimplification of the Left, a group of centrist rabbis and journalists have joined them in the degradation of language, alleging in a petition now circulating online that “the lie that Israel committed ‘genocide’ in Gaza” is “the latest blood libel to be inflicted on the Jewish people.”

I hasten to point out that this petition does not come from the Hard Right — it includes journalist Yossi Klein Halevi and rabbis Yitz Greenberg and Shmuly Yanklowitz. Many who have signed are friends and spiritual mentors of mine.

Yet it is just as misguided as the misuse of language it seeks to condemn — perhaps even more so, as it now adds “blood libel” to the pile of terms rendered meaningless by misuse.

None of the evidence I have adduced above is mentioned in the petition. There is no mention of the inhabitability of Gaza today, or the insane plan to ethnically cleanse the territory and replace it with Trump-branded resorts. There are no citations to Ben Gvir and Smotrich’s clear statements of genocidal intent or the Israeli public’s support for genocide. Only Israel’s case is made.

Which would be fine, if the petition were a blog post in defense of Israel. But it is much more than that. It is a claim that to use the word genocide is, itself, a blood libel — a baseless, hateful and antisemitic claim.

Why is this helpful, in any way? What could this hateful, factually-challenged slander possibly hope to accomplish?

There are many thoughtful, reasonable people who believe Israel committed genocide in Gaza. There are many thoughtful, reasonable people who believe it has not. Scholars of genocide have made strong arguments on both sides, both backed up by evidence. This is a close case, a serious matter, and a serious charge. Denigrating the “other side” in such brutal and absolutist terms accomplishes nothing.

On the contrary, this petition is so extreme and so preposterous that, in attempting to exculpate Israel, it makes Israel look more guilty. There are arguments to be made in defense of Israel’s actions, and the petition makes some of them. But this accusation is so outlandish that it makes it look like Israel can’t possibly prevail on the merits and must, instead, depict its opponents as bigots.

It also defies common sense. Those who have accused Israel of genocide include many Jewish scholars, religious leaders, journalists and activists. Are they all complicit in vile, murderous acts of antisemitism? What about the Israeli organization B’Tselem and several Jewish progressive organizations? Perhaps they, like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Physicians for Human Rights are deluded, or wrong or careless about the facts. Perhaps they are all jumping on some progressive bandwagon, or improperly focused on Israel, or whatever. Fine. But blood libel?

Moreover, as Shaul Magid has recently written, the refusal even to engage with the horrors of Gaza — except in one self-congratulatory line about internal disagreement being “a sign of moral health” — itself bespeaks a profound loss of conscience. The level of destruction relative to legitimate military goals and the overt statements of genocidal intent by some Israeli leaders demand more than that. They demand teshuvah, not tochechah — introspection, not rebuke.

All of this degradation of discourse is deeply regrettable. The Left was wrong to make the word “genocide” into a Yes/No test of one’s political acceptability, and these would-be defenders of Israel are wrong to make it a test of whether one is an antisemite.

The accusation of ‘genocide’ is not a card played at a political poker game. It is a grave moral and criminal charge, rooted in the Holocaust, and it warrants a serious and objective investigation. Not the further diminishment of our humanity.