The ongoing international court cases accusing Myanmar and Israel of genocide are raising concerns about the dilution of the term's meaning in international law. The case against Myanmar, brought by Gambia over alleged atrocities against the Rohingya, has implications for a similar case targeting Israel, with critics arguing that these proceedings risk politicizing and weakening the strict definition of 'genocide.'

The article contends that the accusations against Israel, led by South Africa, are flawed and ignore the intent required by international law to prove genocide. It highlights Israel's stated military objectives in Gaza, its efforts to minimize civilian harm, and contrasts these with the actions of Hamas, which has embedded itself among civilians and committed atrocities.

The author warns that politicizing the term 'genocide' undermines its gravity and could discredit international legal institutions. He argues that Israel's actions are a legitimate response to attacks by a terrorist group, and that redefining genocide for political purposes must be resisted.