The Israel-Hamas war has opened a new front in the campus culture war raging across American universities. As students and faculty take to the streets and media platforms, the use of hyperbolic, reductionist rhetoric eclipses any opportunity for mutual understanding and progress. 

The use of the word “genocide” is, perhaps, the best example of how not to engage in campus dialogue on this issue. On Yale’s campus and others across the country, the word is used colloquially on both sides of the conflict to mean “killing a lot of people.” But genocide is not a colloquial word. It is a legal word with a narrow legal definition. 

In 1944, the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin combined the Greek word “genos” (race, tribe) and the Latin word “cide” (killing) to describe the Nazi’s crimes during the Holocaust. Lempkin attempted to use his new word to prosecute Nazis during the Nuremberg Trials, but “genocide” was not yet a legal crime. Four years later, the United Nations held the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. It was here that the term “genocide” received a narrow legal definition: certain acts committed with a specific “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

During the campus uproar at Harvard last month, which received national attention, both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli demonstrators tied the word “genocide” to their causes. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators held a large white banner with the words “STOP THE GENOCIDE” in capital red letters.  In response, a Harvard doctoral penned an opinion column in The Wall Street Journal in which he condemned the protests and described the Hamas’s terrorist attack as “proto-genocide.”  

At Yale, I’ve heard “genocide” used more and more frequently as the humanitarian crisis worsens and the death toll in Gaza climbs. I first saw the word on Yale professor Zareena Grewal’s Twitter post on Oct. 7, calling Israel a “murderous, genocidal settler state.” And almost every day since, I have heard the word “genocide” in conversations with friends, seen it on social media posts or read it in petitions sent through school email chains. 

But is this the right word? With “genocide’s” historical significance and legal meaning in mind, should we use the term to describe either Hamas’ or Israel’s crimes? The short answer is no. 

The available evidence does not suggest that Hamas or Israel has committed genocide as Raphael Lemkin or the United Nations convention define it. Hamas’ recent rhetoric and original 1988 charter are extreme in their descriptions of Jewish enemies and Zionist occupiers. But this Islamist language and calls for resistance do not comprise an actionable plan for the systematic eradication of the Jewish people. Terrorist attacks, like the Oct. 7 invasion, are devastating crimes against humanity, but they are not genocide.

In the case of Israel, many describe the Israel Defense Forces’ continued assault on Gaza as genocide. It is true that the IDF’s bombardment has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands more. But it is inaccurate to describe these actions as genocide. Intent is at the core of the legal definition of genocide. And Israel’s intentions do not meet the mark. As we assess the military operations in Gaza, we must consider the context. After the Oct. 7 attack, which left over 1,200 Israeli civilians dead, Hamas proved capable and willing to launch attacks against Israel from within Gaza. Responding to these attacks, Israel declared war against the formal entity that is Hamas and has since tried to eliminate the terrorist organization’s sophisticated infrastructure in Gaza.  

Two aspects of the Israel’s military plan demonstrate that this attack is not genocide. First, Israel’s politicians and War Cabinet have specifically identified Hamas, not the people of Gaza, as their enemy. Second, the Israeli military issued an order for Palestinian civilians to flee south, away from the northern warzone. On each of these points, we should question how difficult it is for citizens to evacuate or whether it is possible to eradicate Hamas without destroying the Palestinian people. But these questions do not change Israel’s clear intent: eradicate Hamas, not the people of Palestine. And, for the definition of genocide, intent matters.  

Some might argue that bickering over intentions or semantics is irrelevant given the severity of the tragedy unfolding. Others might go a step further and argue that using heavy if inaccurate language is necessary to attract attention to noble causes. I think it is quite the opposite. Precisely because this issue is so severe, we must be thoughtful and deliberate in the words we use to describe it. 

At Yale, far away from the bloodshed and destruction in Gaza, there are a few productive actions we can take as students. We can try to convince others to take up one of our causes — whether that be pushing for humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza or supplying Israel with more aid to defend itself. Or, we might merely do our best to understand the conflict in case we ever have to make hard decisions related to it. In either case — convincing others or attempting to understand the issue — sensationalist, inaccurate words do not help. They get in the way. 

To communicate to others what we think, to understand how others think, to make progress, we must be clear on what is happening and be intentional in the words we use to describe it. Being thoughtful with the language we use, at the very least, pays these tragic, world-reshaping events the respect they deserve. 

AIDAN STRETCH is a junior in Saybrook College. Contact him at aidan.stretch@yale.edu.