Gregg Mashberg is a member of the board of directors of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism. Follow him on X: @gregg_mashberg.
(Oct. 14, 2026 / JNS)
On Oct. 7, the third anniversary of Hamas’s barbaric invasion of Israel, more than 75 retired senior American military officers and legal experts issued an extraordinary open letter rejecting categorically that Israel is guilty of genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Drawing on their experience commanding American forces in combat, these generals and admirals state: “Israel has not committed genocide but rather set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing, including the death of its own civilians.”
The open letter, organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), is not only about Israel; it is about America, as well. Falsely accusing Israel of genocide, the letter explained, threatens America’s national security by setting a dangerous precedent for future American military operations.
No major American news organization has reported on the JINSA letter. In the days since its release, there has been no media coverage outside the Jewish and Israeli press and social media.
To be sure, Israel’s and Jewish groups’ rejection of the genocide charge has been reported, but the open letter is qualitatively different. It reflects the informed and independent judgment of former leaders of the U.S. military rebutting the charge. It stands alone.
Contrast this silence with the extensive coverage afforded to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s genocide accusations against Israel (here, here and here) and other recent mainstream coverage of genocide accusations (here, here and here).
Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It is the gravest accusation that can be leveled against a nation and its people. Ironically, the convention was adopted as a reaction to the Holocaust.
A legal determination of genocide could be catastrophic for Israel, justifying sanctions and diplomatic and cultural isolation, even criminal prosecution. But short of a legal finding, the mere accusation is a badge of horror and ignominy that, as we see in the case of Israel, is a potent weapon.
The Genocide Convention does not authorize this abuse. It establishes an exacting legal standard based not simply on the number of people killed in battle (“genocide is not a quantitative crime,” the letter explains), but on a specific intent to destroy a protected group. In the case of Israel, the letter’s signatories conclude, the standard of proof has not been met: “Israel has neither intended to, nor destroyed, Palestinians as a group in Gaza.”
Falsely accusing Israel of genocide, the letter explained, threatens America’s national security.
The generals and admirals don’t deny the suffering of Gaza’s civilians or claim that every Israeli military action was necessarily lawful. Rather, they distinguish between the terrible consequences of urban warfare (instigated by Hamas) and the deliberate destruction of a people. The former happened in Gaza; the latter did not.
Contrary to accusations, the letter cites assessments describing Israel’s military as taking “an unprecedented combination of precautions to avoid civilian casualties,” including “call[ing] off strikes because of the presence of civilians.”
Further putting the lie to the genocide charge: “IDF soldiers have even put themselves in harm’s way to protect Palestinians seeking to flee the fighting from attack by Hamas.”
The “It’s a genocide!” lobby knows Israel’s conduct in Gaza does not meet the governing definition of the crime. So, their response is as dishonest as it is simple: change the definition. Thus has arisen the international effort before the International Court of Justice to replace the current stringent rule with a “politically malleable,” “facts and circumstances” standard for establishing genocide—see here, here and here.
But beyond the precise legal definition, the concept of genocide is embedded deeply in the public’s psyche. It reflects the absolute worst of humanity, so that even finding Israel guilty based on a relaxed and amorphous legal standard would remain a disaster for Israel. It is the word alone, no matter how the crime may be redefined, that would place Israel in the company of Pol Pot, Rwandan Hutus and, yes, Hitler.
That, not vindication of international human-rights law, is what this campaign is all about. Once Israel is officially branded a genocidal state, even if under a relaxed legal definition, Israel will be cornered. The goal of “South Africanizing” Israel and casting it out of the family of nations, as was the apartheid regime, would come that much closer to accomplishment.
As if more is needed to question the media’s failure to report what our former military commanders are telling us, the letter explains this is not just about Israel; it is about the United States as well:
The precedent established today regarding Israel will shape the conditions under which American forces fight tomorrow. Protecting civilians and preserving the ability of our nation to defend itself requires us to defend the truth when the laws of war are being distorted to make false charges of genocide.
The refusal to report this message is beyond troubling, and it gets worse.
On Oct. 9, just two days after JINSA released the officers’ letter, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded its coveted Peace Prize to Navi Pillay. In acknowledging the announcement of the award, Pillay, a strident critic of Israel long associated with the genocide charge, highlighted her work as the chair of the United Nations’ much-criticized Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which issued a report in September 2025 charging Israel with genocide in Gaza.
Speaking from the actual Nuremberg trial courtroom, she said, “The last thing I did is the delivery of the report on Gaza, naming what’s happening there as genocide.” She followed with, “Why would you need courage to speak the truth?”
These remarks—and Israel’s denials—were widely reported by mainstream media outlets.
At a moment when genocide is front-page news, including the bestowal of the ultimate honor of the Nobel Peace Prize on the U.N. official most identified with attacking Israel as a genocidal state, the media somehow couldn’t find the will to report the categorical rejection of the charge by no less than former leaders of America’s armed forces. By what measure of fairness, professionalism and integrity can journalists justify this deliberate omission?
The open letter is an independent and authoritative rebuttal of the hugely consequential charge of genocide against Israel. The mainstream media’s failure to report on it, despite otherwise covering the genocide charge extensively, is a searing indictment of the state of journalism today.