New Study Finds Hamas’ Oct 7 Attack Meets International Legal Definition of Genocide

Avraham Russell Shalev’s new study, in Cambridge University Press, argues that Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel qualifies as genocide — citing systematic violence and intent to target Israeli Jews

Newly published research by Avraham Russell Shalev argues that the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel meets the legal definition of genocide under the UN Genocide Convention. In his study, published in the Israel Law Review by Cambridge University Press, Shalev concludes that Hamas’ actions fulfill both the physical acts and the specific intent required for genocide.

Drawing on international jurisprudence from the ICJ and tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, he contends that systematic killings, sexual violence, and deliberate targeting of Israeli Jews, combined with the group’s ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction, meet the high threshold set by law.

Evidence of Physical Acts and Intent

Shalev’s findings point to the clear alignment of the October 7 attack with the actus reus of genocide — the physical acts required by law, including killing and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of a protected group. He cites the widespread massacres, mutilations, and sexual violence that occurred during the attack as evidence of these physical acts.

The specific intent, or dolus specialis, to destroy Israeli Jews as a group, is demonstrated through Hamas’ foundational ideology, documented statements by its leadership, and strategic operational planning. These elements of intent, combined with the calculated execution of the attack, illustrate a clear goal of genocidal destruction, rather than mere acts of terror or military violence.

The Role of Reverse Accusations

A key aspect of Shalev’s research is what he describes as the “weaponisation of reverse accusations,” where allegations of genocide against Israel, such as South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have been employed as a rhetorical shield to deflect from Hamas’ own genocidal actions.

According to Shalev, this tactic mirrors other historical examples, such as Russia’s allegations of genocide in Ukraine in 2022, where claims of genocide were used politically to shift attention away from the perpetrators’ own actions. He argues that such reverse accusations distort the international recognition of actual genocidal acts, allowing perpetrators to avoid accountability.

Why Recognition Matters

Shalev underscores the importance of formally recognizing the October 7 attacks as genocide. According to his analysis, legal recognition is critical not only for the sake of justice but also for deterrence, historical memory, and the dignity of victims. He argues that failure to classify the events as genocide emboldens future perpetrators and allows denial narratives to flourish, which can lead to further atrocities

Drawing on historical precedents, Shalev highlights how delayed recognition of genocides, such as the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust, has contributed to long-term global instability. He contends that formally recognizing the attack as genocide will send a strong signal about international resolve to prevent similar acts in the future.

The Role of Qatar and Iran in Hamas’ Genocidal Actions

In his article, Shalev delves into the roles of Qatar and Iran in supporting Hamas, particularly in relation to the October 7th attacks. He highlights Qatar’s involvement, noting that the country hosts several key Hamas officials, including Khalil al-Hayya and Khaled Mashal. Shalev argues that Qatar, while not directly involved in the violence, provides significant indirect support to Hamas through its political and financial backing.

This includes offering a safe haven for Hamas leadership, enabling the group's ability to operate and plan. As a non-state party to the Genocide Convention, Qatar is seen as having an obligation to either prosecute Hamas leaders or extradite them to countries willing to do so.

Iran’s role is also pivotal, as the country has long been a major patron of Hamas. Shalev points out that Iran’s Quds Force, a division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has been instrumental in training Hamas militants and supplying them with military resources. Iranian support has greatly enhanced Hamas' capabilities, including advanced weapons such as aerial drones and the tactical use of motorcycle attacks. This assistance has been crucial in enabling Hamas to carry out large-scale, coordinated attacks like the one on October 7th.

Shalev stresses that both Qatar and Iran are complicit in the perpetuation of genocide due to their direct and indirect support of Hamas. The article argues that these states have a legal responsibility under the Genocide Convention to prevent such acts by ceasing all forms of support to Hamas. Moreover, both nations risk facing international legal consequences for their continued failure to prevent, prosecute, or extradite Hamas members involved in genocidal activities.

Holding Non-State Actors Accountable

Another key element of Shalev’s study is the question of whether non-state actors, like Hamas, can be held responsible for genocide. In a comment to Jewish Onliner, Shalev noted the following:

“We can already hold individual actors criminally accountable. In Germany, ISIS terrorists have been prosecuted for carrying out genocide against Yazidis. To hold Hamas accountable as a group, we need to adopt the rules of state accountability."

Broader Implications for International Justice

Shalev’s research also connects the events of October 7 to broader patterns of Islamist antisemitism and the evolving landscape of international genocide law. He emphasizes that the recognition of Hamas’ actions as genocide would have significant legal implications, extending beyond the case at hand to impact the international community’s obligations to prevent and punish genocidal acts. By contextualizing Hamas' actions within the ideological framework that motivates groups like Hamas, Shalev argues that such recognition could lead to a shift in how the international community responds to extremist groups globally, ensuring that future atrocities are met with more robust preventative measures.