OPINION: The real genocide lie: How a slur against Israel puts all Jews in danger

Recognising the terrible suffering and tragic loss of innocent lives on both sides—the Israelis and the Palestinians caught in this conflict – is a matter of shared humanity. Every life lost is a human tragedy deserving empathy and respect. With a breakthrough peace deal now progressing, there is at last hope that both peoples might step back from the abyss.

A new academic paper, “The Genocide Libel: How the World Has Charged Israel with Genocide,” by historian Norman J.W. Goda, exposes how the toxic genocide accusation has been hurled at Israel not just in recent years, but ever since the 1940s—right from the time the concept of genocide was first defined after the horrors of the Holocaust.

A Claim That Isn’t New—and Isn’t True

Get The Jewish News Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

For nearly eight decades, activists and Israel’s fiercest critics have twisted the meaning of genocide to suit their political agenda. As Goda reveals, when the term “genocide” first entered international law, there were deliberate attempts to broaden its meaningfrom systematic killing – to include everything from population shifts to lost homes and cultural change. Through careful manipulation of language, Israel quickly became the main target and painted as a “genocidal state” , regardless of what the law actually says.

Goda’s research is clear: the legal definition, adopted in 1948, is precise and severe—it refers only to mass killing with the intent to wipe out a people, nothing more. The constant effort to stretch it, year after year, has been a calculated move to make the accusation stick to Israel. Such false charges are not legitimate criticism; they’re part of a cynical, long-standing strategy to delegitimise Israel and vilify Jews worldwide.

More in UK News

2 hours ago

Islington Council pressing ahead with controversial pension fund divestment plan

By Lee Harpin

21 hours ago

Israeli goalkeeper Daniel Peretz seals permanent Southampton move

By Annabel Sinclair

22 hours ago

Associate of Heaton Park synagogue attacker admits Defence Academy plan

By Lee Harpin

Blurring the Line Between Debate and Demonisation

This misuse of language goes far beyond reasoned debate. By labelling Israelis—and by extension, Jews everywhere—as “genocidal,” activists revive the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic myths, leading to real consequences on Britain’s streets and fuelling hatred across the globe. The claim is not about proportionality or policy; it’s about demonisation.

What Britain Must Do

Every UK politician and journalist owes it to British Jews—and to honest public debate—to read Goda’s paper and understand the facts. The genocide claim isn’t new, and it certainly isn’t true: it’s a weapon which has been wielded against Israel and the Jewish people since the 1940s and never supported by hard legal reality. If you truly wish to protect British Jews, recognise the genocide charge for the calculated libel it is, and distinguish it sharply from valid questions about proportionality or civilian harm.

War and Proportionality: A Legitimate Debate

Let’s be clear: the real issue at stake in this war isn’t some manufactured genocide claim, but the morally serious question of proportionality—a debate Britain should welcome, not hijack. Proportionality is the cornerstone of international law. It means armed forces must ensure civilian harm is not excessive compared to the direct military advantage—nothing like “eye for an eye” – but proper, measured restraint in the face of threat. It’s about using force in a way that fits the danger; not vengeance, but limitation. And it’s what Britain did in its finest hour. More than 20,000  innocent civilians died in the Normandy landings—yet, that was Britain’s proudest military moment.

From the safety of our sofas, lacking military experience, it’s easy to pass judgment on how Israel fights a war. When some say, “Britain didn’t bomb Northern Ireland,” they overlook that the scale, threat, and urban battleground Israel faces are of a different order entirely. That’s why military professionals worldwide study Israel’s actions so intensely—whatever their governments say for public consumption, they know these are the dilemmas their own forces may one day face.

Now, when the hope of peace is finally flickering, what do today’s protestors really want? If, even at the moment of peace, the same voices keep rejecting compromise and negotiated outcomes, was their true objective ever about Palestinian dignity and safety? Or has it always been about bashing Israel, regardless of the facts? When the slogans outlive the conflict, the motives become clear.

The Peace Deal: Proof in Practice

With Israel having agreed to the US-backed peace plan, which includes a framework for a lasting ceasefire, the release of all hostages by Hamas, and the release of Palestinian security prisoners by Israel, alongside the large-scale entry of humanitarian aid—Israel demonstrates again that it does not seek the destruction of a people, but the chance for an end to hostilities. This agreement now offers real hope for the people of Palestine—a future with dignity, hope, and the prospect of international support for true reconstruction, finally free from Hamas’s grip.

Britain must remember: real debate is about tough choices in war—never the weaponising of false claims. That, as Goda warns in his academic paper, is a libel with historic consequences not only for Israel, but for Jewish communities everywhere.

Clive Lewis is a businessman and philanthropist