In the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the misuse of terms like "genocide" and "famine" is raising alarms. Critics argue that such language distortions do not alleviate human suffering but instead undermine legal protections for vulnerable populations. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is severe, with families facing immense hardship. Meanwhile, Israeli families are mourning the aftermath of the October 7 attacks and are demanding the return of hostages held by Hamas.

Acknowledging suffering is crucial, but it should not come at the expense of misrepresenting international law. The term "genocide" is being applied in ways that some experts believe dilute its meaning. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a United Nations-affiliated organization, reported on August 22 that a famine is occurring in Gaza. However, Israel's Foreign Ministry contends that the IPC altered its criteria for assessing famine, moving from a 30 percent child malnutrition benchmark to a 15 percent threshold. This shift raises concerns about a double standard in defining famine.

Since October 7, Israel has facilitated the entry of over two million tons of aid into Gaza. However, the UN reports that up to 90 percent of this aid has been seized by armed groups or looted before reaching those in need. The language surrounding accusations of genocide is similarly contentious. Amnesty International has suggested that the legal definition of genocide is too narrow, arguing that it needs to be redefined to apply to Israel's actions. Critics warn that redefining such a serious crime undermines the ability to recognize and address actual genocides.

The International Court of Justice has clarified that genocidal intent must be the only reasonable conclusion drawn from a state's actions. In the current Gaza conflict, Israel's stated goals are to dismantle Hamas, which orchestrated the October 7 attacks, and to secure the release of hostages. While some fringe politicians may use extreme rhetoric, Israel's military objectives remain focused on these goals.

Even when considering Hamas's casualty figures, which are disputed, the numbers do not support claims of genocide. Civilian casualties are indeed tragic, but they reflect a broader trend in modern warfare, where civilians often make up a significant portion of casualties. The UN estimates that since World War II, civilians have accounted for about 90 percent of wartime deaths. In Gaza, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is reported to be around 2:1, which, while still concerning, is lower than in many recent conflicts.

This context does not diminish the suffering of civilians in Gaza. Every civilian death is a tragedy, and every child facing malnutrition or trauma deserves global attention. However, the complexities of urban warfare against a terrorist organization that uses human shields complicate the situation further. The focus should remain on addressing the humanitarian needs of those affected without distorting the language that describes their plight.