Accusing Israel of special intent to destroy, when the state itself was the victim of attempted destruction, is ultimately perverse. The ICJ will consider, too, that the absence of special intent is strongly evidenced by Israel's specific actions in Gaza.

Public debate now uses the word “genocide” more readily than ever, often without reference to the strict legal criteria that define the crime. This article explores how the misuse of grave legal terminology - particularly the neglect of intent, evidentiary thresholds, and case law - threatens the credibility of international legal institutions. It argues that protecting the precision of the Genocide Convention is not about politics, but about safeguarding the rule of law itself.