TIL: Dolus specialis.
Dolus specialis is a Latin legal term used in international criminal law. It refers to a special form of intent, one not satisfied by general criminal intent alone but requiring a heightened intent directed at achieving a particular prohibited outcome.
Etymology:
-
dolus = intent, deceit, intentional wrongdoing
-
specialis = particular, distinguished from othe
In law, this concept is crucial. Ordinary crimes may only require dolus generalis (general intent), such as intending to commit an act regardless of any larger purpose. But some crimes, like genocide, require dolus specialis: the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. That extra layer of intent distinguishes genocide from the many other horrors of war.
This is very relevant to what’s happening in Israel right now.
Legal Accusation
Several UN bodies, human rights groups, and governments have argued that Israel’s military response in Gaza since October 7, 2023, meets the definition of genocide. They cite the enormous civilian death toll (over 40,000 according to Gaza authorities), widespread destruction of infrastructure, and mass displacement of more than 90% of Gaza’s population. They also highlight incendiary public statements by some Israeli officials, which appear to show an intent to destroy Palestinians “as such.”
South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2023 crystallized these accusations. It alleged that Israel’s actions, including bombings, ground operations, and restrictions on food and medicine, constitute genocide under the 1948 Convention. The ICJ, while not ruling on the merits yet, has issued provisional measures three times, finding there is a “plausible risk” of genocide. These measures require Israel to allow humanitarian aid and prevent genocidal acts, though they stop short of declaring that genocide is actually occurring.
Intent Debate
The heart of the debate lies in dolus specialis. Genocide requires more than death, destruction, or suffering. It requires proof of specific intent to eliminate a group. Historically, genocides like the Holocaust, Rwanda, or Cambodia revealed that intent unmistakably through death camps, organized massacres, written policies, and systematic targeting of a group’s very existence.
By contrast, the situation in Gaza is complex.
Most Palestinian deaths have occurred through urban warfare, bombardments, and military strikes, not systematic roundups, executions, or extermination camps. Israel has made evacuation warnings, facilitated some humanitarian aid, and targeted its rhetoric toward defeating Hamas rather than Palestinians as a whole. These facts complicate the assertion of dolus specialis.
On the other hand, Israeli officials’ extreme statements, such as calls to “erase Gaza” or referring to Palestinians as “human animals,” are cited as evidence of genocidal incitement. Critics argue that even if Israel’s official war aim is the destruction of Hamas, the sheer scale of civilian harm combined with such rhetoric amounts to intent by conduct.
Comparisons
Genocide archetypes: The Holocaust used extermination camps. Rwanda saw systematic machete massacres. Cambodia carried out forced starvation and executions. In each, the intent to annihilate was unmistakable.
Gaza context: Civilian deaths are enormous, but largely as collateral damage from war against an entrenched militant group that embeds itself in civilian infrastructure. The devastation is real but different in method and arguably in intent.
Aid and survival: Israel’s allowance of some humanitarian aid, however limited, is sometimes viewed as contradicting genocidal intent, since genocide traditionally involves total deprivation of survival needs. Others argue this allowance is merely tactical and does not absolve intent if the broader conduct shows destruction.
Hamas and Dolus Specialis
It is also worth noting that many legal scholars point out Hamas’s intent toward Israelis reflects dolus specialis more clearly. The October 7, 2023, attacks deliberately targeted civilians, including systematic killings, kidnappings, and massacres. Hamas’s founding covenant and public statements call for the elimination of Israel and Jews, aligning directly with genocidal intent. Scholars from The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and security experts describe this as genocidal rhetoric and action, with antisemitic tropes echoing Nazi-like propaganda.
This contrast highlights the difficulty.
Israel is accused of genocide largely by inference, while Hamas openly declares it.
Political Context
The debate is inflamed by the geopolitical stage. The U.S. continues to back Israel with military aid and diplomatic cover, citing security concerns and alliance commitments. Some states and international bodies use genocide language both as legal argument and political pressure. Meanwhile, accusations of genocide have historically been misapplied to Israel, such as in 1948 and 1967, making some observers cautious of political motives behind the charge.
Inside Israel, the accusation of genocide is largely rejected, viewed as unthinkable given Jewish history. For Jews worldwide, the charge resonates painfully, especially as antisemitic attacks increase in other countries.
Bigger Picture
Genocide is not simply a synonym for mass suffering.
It is a precise legal term requiring proof of special intent to destroy a group as such. The ongoing case at the ICJ shows that proving this intent is far harder than recognizing devastation.
Applying the word genocide to Israel’s actions may be reductive.
It risks collapsing the complexity of war, strategy, propaganda, and tragedy into a single trigger word. The result can be less about legal precision and more about political weaponization.
None of this diminishes the suffering in Gaza.
The civilian toll, the displacement, the destruction of homes and hospitals, all are catastrophic and cry out for an end. But whether those realities constitute genocide is a distinct and difficult legal question.
We Must Hold
We can affirm two truths:
-
That applying “genocide” simplistically may be more about echo chambers, programming, and propaganda than about legal accuracy.
-
That the devastation in Gaza is intolerable, that Israeli sovereignty matters, and that Jewish communities face precarious dangers as antisemitism rises globally.
Word matters, but so does the reality.
What matters most of all is the desire to see this end, for Palestinians, for Israelis, and for the stability of a region where peace feels impossible yet remains essential.