Claiming that Israel is committing genocide or causing mass starvation in Gaza is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. However, changing the definitions of these words in order to attack Israel clearly is. That is what international bodies, NGOs, other organizations, pundits, and commentators have been doing since Israel was attacked by Hamas on October 7 — manipulating definitions to claim that Israel is committing some of the worst atrocities in human history, when in reality, they are fighting the most moral war against the most immoral opposition.

This tactic is not new. Changing the definitions of words to suit a personal or political narrative is a hallmark of recent discourse. Words like “preference,” “vaccine,” “they,” and “racism” have all been redefined in recent years at the behest of elected and unelected activists. Viral moments of senators asking federal judicial candidates to define the word “woman” have become commonplace, and even more commonplace are the lack of clear answers. Despite electoral setbacks after deploying this tactic, it is still being used regularly.

The latest flashpoint came in late July, when the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) — a U.N.-affiliated network of governments, aid groups, and nonprofits — issued a report declaring a “worst-case scenario of famine” in Gaza. As detailed in a Washington Free Beacon investigation published last week, this declaration wasn’t based on consistent standards but on a quiet shift in methodology that lowered the bar for what constitutes famine. The Free Beacon reported:

“The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) — a network of Western governments, the United Nations, and nonprofit groups — determined in a July 29 report ‘the worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip,’ claiming that ‘mounting evidence shows that widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths.’”

The IPC’s redefining of a universally recognized term in order to accuse Israel of it is simply anti-Semitism. Traditionally, the IPC relies on precise metrics like weight-for-height measurements to gauge acute malnutrition, requiring 30 percent of children in an area to meet this threshold for a famine declaration. For Gaza, however, they introduced mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) — a quicker but less accurate method — and slashed the threshold to 15 percent.

The Free Beacon quoted a veteran aid industry insider describing this as a “pretty big shift” that suggests the IPC is “lowering the bar, or trying to make it easier for the famine determination to be made.” Another aid worker explained:

“In all of the famines that have been declared, they’ve been using the 30-percent global malnutrition measurement, most of which have been based on the weight-for-height metric — which, again, is much harder to collect, much more burdensome, and it’s 30 percent. So, this asterisk that’s been added for Gaza essentially says that they’re going to allow a 15-percent global malnutrition rate measured by MUAC.”

This asterisk — literally a footnote in the IPC’s graphic on famine classification — highlights the inconsistency. The IPC’s own technical manual and “Famine Fact Sheet” emphasize weight-for-height as the primary indicator. Yet for Gaza cities like Deir al-Balah, Khan Younis, and Gaza City, MUAC data showed malnutrition rates as low as under 8 percent in some areas, barely scraping above 15 percent in others.

Despite this, media outlets like The New York Times and CNN amplified the IPC report, blaming Israeli aid restrictions. But the Free Beacon exposé reveals a tailored standard applied selectively to Gaza, unlike in conflicts in Somalia, South Sudan, or Sudan.

This isn’t an isolated incident. It echoes a broader pattern where definitions are stretched to vilify Israel, particularly in accusations of genocide. In December 2024, Amnesty International released a report titled “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza”, arguing for an expanded interpretation of genocide to encompass Israel’s actions.

A critical response from the think tank Thinc. (The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation), published in December 2024, dissected Amnesty’s approach:

“What is most concerning about this report is that it seeks to broaden the definition of genocide under international law in order to accuse Israel of committing it.”

The analysis noted Amnesty’s suggestion for a “wider and more ‘holistic’ approach,” including inferring intent from circumstantial evidence like patterns of conduct or military goals coexisting with alleged genocidal acts. As Thinc. pointed out:

“Under this suggestion, any conflict (where there is bound to be suffering among civilians and other non-combatants) can be classified as genocide.”

Amnesty’s report also omits critical context, such as Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks that killed 1,200 Israelis and took 251 hostages, framing Israel’s response as unprovoked. Thinc. criticized this selective narrative:

“Amnesty International’s omission of Israel’s self-defense justification deliberately distorts the context, failing to acknowledge Israel’s obligation under international law to defend its citizens against the immediate and severe threat posed by Hamas’s unprecedented attack.”

Even Amnesty’s Israel branch distanced itself, stating that while “serious crimes” may be occurring, Israel’s actions do not meet the genocide definition. Thinc. also quoted internal critics:

“From the outset, the report was referred to in international correspondence as the ‘genocide report,’ even when the research was still in its initial stages. This is a strong indication of bias.”

Similarly, Ireland’s government, in a move announced in 2025, sought to intervene in South Africa’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel, pushing for a broader genocide definition. As reported by The Media Line:

“Ireland is going to request that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague broaden its interpretation of genocide amid the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, with Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Micheál Martin, asserting that the IDF’s actions in Gaza constitute ‘collective punishment’ of Palestinians.”

Experts cited in the article called this a “double-edged sword.” Dr. Eliav Lieblich, a professor at Tel Aviv University, noted:

“The text of the letter is a double-edged sword for the case since Ireland seems to concede that the accepted interpretation of the crime would not apply in this case and argues that it should be changed.”

Dr. Tammy Caner from the Institute for National Security Studies added:

“Requesting the ICJ to broaden its interpretation explicitly indicates that Israel is not committing genocide.”

The Genocide Convention, established in 1948 after the Holocaust, requires “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” The ICJ has upheld a high threshold, as in Bosnia v. Serbia, demanding “fully conclusive evidence.” Ireland’s push, like Amnesty’s, admits the current definition doesn’t fit — yet insists on changing it. Jackie Goodall of the Ireland Israel Alliance condemned this move as “appeasement of hostile and aggressive anti-Israel protesters,” warning it would damage diplomatic ties.

Reality on the ground contradicts these claims. There is no famine in Gaza; Israel has facilitated massive aid inflows, including food, medicine, and vaccines, despite Hamas’s documented theft and resale of supplies. Civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in Gaza — estimated at 1.4:1 or lower by sources like the IDF and U.N. reports — are far below urban warfare averages (e.g., 2.5:1 in Mosul against ISIS), showing Israel’s efforts to minimize harm despite Hamas’s use of human shields.

No genocide exists. Israel’s actions target Hamas, not Palestinians, with evacuations and warnings standard practice.

Changing these definitions is weaponizing language against the Jewish state. It enables the international community to reward terrorism with statehood, promote the BDS movement, and funnel billions of dollars into the Palestinian terror machine. This is not accidental or careless — it is deliberate.

This is part of a global war on Israel. When organizations and countries can’t use physical weapons to attack, they do so with words. It’s a precursor of things to come — and it must be fought at every turn.

Moshe Hill is a political analyst and columnist. His work can be found at www.aHillwithaView.com  and on X at @HillWithView.