Abstract

The article examines the historical and legal complexities surrounding genocide accusations, particularly through the lens of Vietnam and Gaza. Drawing parallels between U.S. military actions in Vietnam and Israeli operations in Gaza, the article explores the challenges in applying the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (UNGC). It argues that the stringent requirement to prove genocidal intent (dolus specialis), shaped by the Holocaust archetype, limits the applicability of the genocide label to military conflicts. Historical debates, such as those surrounding the Vietnam War, highlighted the tension between civilian suffering from military actions and legal distinctions from genocide. The article revisits arguments made by activists and scholars like Jean-Paul Sartre, Richard Falk, and Telford Taylor to critique the exclusion of counterinsurgency violence from the genocide framework. It further interrogates Israel’s current siege and military strategies in Gaza, showing how military and genocidal logics intertwine. The work highlights the limitations of international law and its racialised and colonial underpinnings, particularly regarding Palestinian suffering. Ultimately, the article calls for rethinking the binary of war and genocide.