Omar Khoury is a clerk for a federal judge in the United States of America. He obtained his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

What was presciently observed by Aeschylus 2,500 years ago remains just as potent a warning today: “A people’s voice is dangerous when charged with wrath.” Under international law, how can we hold those who “charge[]” the “people’s voice … with wrath” accountable?

Perhaps nowhere else is this question–and this warning–more relevant than as presently applied to Israel. Especially after the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, Israel’s Channel 14 has broadcasted statements by dozens of presenters, panelists, and guests expressly advocating for genocide and overtly calling for war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians.[1] At the same time, the evidence grievously mounts establishing that Israel’s military response has unfolded into a genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.[2] And all of this occurs in light of the International Court of Justice’s January 26, 2024 ruling instituting provisional measures against Israel that requires it, among others, to “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.”[3]

International law can provide a framework for criminalizing and prosecuting those accused of direct and public incitement to genocide. But how would it likely play out in the case of Israel and Channel 14?

Direct and Public Incitement to Genocide

Direct and public incitement to commit genocide is a crime under Article III(c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[4] Genocides in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Myanmar, and now Israel have demonstrated that hate speech and incitement often sow the seeds of rotten fruit that later blossom into atrocity crimes.[5] Of course, mobilization to commit mass violence is a complex social phenomenon involving many different actors of varying degrees of culpability. But because of the expansive reach of the media and its undeniable impact in shaping public opinion, media officials should still be held responsible for the media entities they exercise effective control over and are not exempt from prosecution merely because they only incited, i.e., not directly committed, acts of genocide.

As the “crime of crimes,”[6] genocide is the only violation of international law to which public incitement has been criminalized.[7] And for good reason. This distinction serves to prevent the early stages of genocide in order to militate against the later consummation of the offense. The criminalization of genocide and crimes related to it is so unique in international law that direct and public incitement to commit genocide is itself punishable even if no corresponding act of genocide resulted therefrom.[8]

Application to the Media Case from the Rwandan Genocide

What elements must be satisfied in order to find a media official guilty for incitement to genocide?

Take the Media case from the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”). Established in 1994 pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 955, the ICTR found two radio journalists and a print journalist guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, and persecution and extermination as crimes against humanity.[9] The tribunal found the defendants, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, Ferdinand Nahimana, and Hassan Ngeze, instrumental in a media disinformation and dehumanization campaign against the Tutsi population.[10]

Nahimana and Barayagwiza were members of the committee that founded Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (“RTLM”), a radio station which from July 1993 until July 1994, broadcast perversely virulent messages branding the ethnic minority, the Tutsis, as the enemy and Hutu opposition members as accomplices, and overtly calling for their extermination.[11] Ngeze was the owner, founder, and editor of a widely circulated Kangura newsletter that similarly published violent messages between 1990 and 1995.[12] Their convictions on direct and public incitement to genocide, among other crimes, were the first such decisions rendered by an international tribunal since the Nuremberg conviction of Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher.[13] 

The Appeals Chamber revisited several convictions of the Trial Judgement. It acquitted the three defendants of conspiracy to commit genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. It affirmed the convictions of Nahimana and Ngeze relating to direct and public incitement to commit genocide, but it reversed Barayagwiza’s guilty verdict in relation to this offence.

A few important considerations guided the Appeals Chamber’s ruling. First, the Appeals Chamber noted that only “specific acts” of direct and public incitement to commit genocide were criminalized, not merely hate speech or propaganda “tending to provoke genocide.”[14] It created an inflection point in the timeline of the RTLM broadcasts and Kangura articles, finding that there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between broadcasts and publications prior to 6 April 1994 and acts of genocide which had occurred. But the Chamber found that the broadcasts and articles post-6 April 1994 amounted to direct and public incitement to commit genocide and consequently inferred causation because the messages were substantially more virulent[15] and openly called for the extermination of Tutsis.[16]

Second, in order to find the defendants individually responsible, the Appeals Chamber emphasized the defendants’ superior positions within and effective control over the respective media entities.[17] The Chamber assessed whether each appellant, beyond a reasonable doubt, (1) knew about the genocidal statements being published and broadcast, and (2) had the material capacity to prevent or punish its broadcasting and publication.[18] Mere membership on a board of a media entity does not, by itself, establish effective control. The question of effective control is instead based on the totality of the evidence adduced.[19]

Here, it was established through the defendants’ roles in the creation of various media entities, their membership in governing committees, their control over the entity finances, their positions of leadership, their involvement with the government, and the risk of taking measures to stop the publication or broadcasting of such statements.[20] This, by design, is an acutely fact-intensive inquiry. And it partially explains why the Appeals Chamber reversed Barayagwiza’s incitement conviction, noting—in re-reviewing the record—that he was in fact Nahimana’s subordinate and did not exercise effective control over RTLM after 6 April 1994.[21]

The Media case illuminates the elements to be found guilty of the crime of direct and public incitement to genocide. One must have directly and publicly incited the commission of genocide (the actus reus element). That same person must have also had the intent to directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide (the mens rea element).[22] The Media defendants made or caused to be made certain statements through their respective media entities that constituted direct and public incitement to commit genocide against Tutsis.[23] And their individual culpability and intent was further scrutinized based on the level of responsibility and effective control they had over the media entities.

Practical Considerations in Prosecution and Jurisdiction

The Media case also demonstrates a few peculiarities of this crime. Though the Appeals Chamber noted that the drafters of the Genocide Convention intended to criminalize incitement even if no act of genocide was committed,[24] it is noteworthy that the defendants were additionally charged with the crime of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, and crimes against humanity. Direct and public incitement to commit genocide is itself a standalone crime under international law, but it is unlikely to be the sole charge brought pursuant to an international tribunal. Hence why no international court has ever presided over a prosecution for incitement without a corresponding crime of genocide or other directly-related large-scale atrocity.[25]

And all of this presupposes jurisdiction. The ICTR only had jurisdiction to prosecute and adjudge the Media case because of its establishment pursuant to UNSC Resolution 955.[26] Thirteen members of the Security Council, including four permanent members, voted for the Resolution. Rwanda voted against it, arguing that certain matters of the draft statute should be left “for the [Rwandan] people to decide” and objecting to the Tribunal’s refusal to apply certain punitive measures (such as the death penalty) as outlined under the Rwandan penal code.[27] China abstained, claiming that the prosecution for the underlying crimes “is a special measure taken by the international community … [and] is only a supplement to domestic criminal jurisdiction.”[28]

Rwanda and China’s reservations suggest that, although direct and public incitement to genocide is a crime under international law, it is not solely prosecutable under international legal statutes. Domestic law can also suffice.

A future scenario could unfold where a proposed international tribunal to punish the crime of genocide (and direct and public incitement to its commission) is defeated because of a P5 member’s veto. That member would attempt to evade moral criticism for such action by invoking the legitimate political consideration of state sovereignty. Put differently, the ICTR–under which the Media case unfolded–provides that there must also be a sufficiently cohesive international political will among Security Council members to invoke international law in order to prosecute a person who is also prosecutable within that state’s domestic court system.

Application to a Hypothetical Israeli-Media Case

Now turn to Israel and Channel 14. First, is there direct and public incitement to genocide? Undoubtedly. Anchor Shai Golden declared on Channel 14’s morning show that “[Israel is] coming to Gaza … to annihilate you. To a-n-n-i-h-i-l-a-t-e” in mid-October 2023.[29] In February 2024, panelist Eliahu Yusian described “two and a half million” Palestinians living in Gaza as “terrorists” and boasted that “every day we’re killing 100 terrorists.” While on air in August 2024, Journalist Yinon Magal read a tweet by a reservist soldier, which lauded “[t]he destruction in Gaza,” described Gaza as “in a state of annihilation,” and urged “[t]he destruction machine [to] keep working so it’s clear [Palestinians] have nowhere to return to.”[30]

These are but a few of the hundreds of openly genocidal statements broadcast on Channel 14’s airwaves. But just as it occurred in the Media case, a court in an Israeli-Media case would need to parse through the record to determine what speech constitutes direct and public incitement, and what is otherwise “ordinary” hate speech. A court doing so would likely establish a temporal inflection point as to when broadcasts became substantially more virulent and violent.

Second, as to intent, Ran Cohen, a prominent Israeli politician, described “the pattern of incitement emerging from Channel 14” as “systematic, sustained, and orchestrated – not incidental … [H]undreds of statements, many delivered by regular hosts and guests, [are] broadcast daily into Israeli homes and directly watched by soldiers.”[31] It is likely the case that certain individuals conspired to orchestrate the “systematic, sustained” broadcast of such statements.

Importantly, an international court or tribunal is unlikely to hold Channel 14 as an entity criminally liable. As it currently stands, the Rome Statute (which would probably provide the statutory foundation for a future international criminal tribunal or prosecution) limits criminal liability to “natural [i.e., not legal] persons” and lacks a structure to hold organizations liable under international criminal law.[32] Natural persons with “effective control” over the entities would likely only be charged, not simply the many commentators, panelists, and hosts who have made such statements on air. And, notably, the media entities involved in the ICTR were state-affiliated, whereas Channel 14 is a privately owned organization.

But all of this presupposes jurisdiction. Whereas there was virtually unanimous support for the establishment of the ICTR, a proposed Security Council resolution for Israel would be greeted with vehement objection by the permanent members of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, all of whom would demand that the prosecution of such crimes–if they were even recognized by those countries to exist–must be an internal Israeli matter. Neither would (or does) Israel consent to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.[33]

Thus, while international law provides a framework for holding those who “charge[]” the “people’s voice … with wrath” accountable, practical realities would nevertheless prevent an international tribunal from facilitating the prosecution of the crime of direct and public incitement to genocide. The prosecution could theoretically only proceed as a domestic Israeli matter, which would be deeply unpopular and met with fervent indignation from the Israeli public.

So if it is inevitable that such an egregious crime will not be punished in Israel, then of what purpose is the purported law that criminalizes it? That is a question best answered by the 1961 film, Judgment at Nuremberg. There, the defense lawyer for the multiple former Nazi officials notes the profound honor and momentous challenge associated with his task. But still he reminds the presiding judges that “the avowed purpose of this [Nuremberg] tribunal is broader than the visiting of retribution on a few men. It is dedicated to the reconsecration of the temple of justice.”[34]

Until that political will to reconsecrate the temple of justice has been attained by Israel, there will be no justice to contend with the incitement that has so charged and the wrath that has since been unleashed.

[1] Ido David Cohen, Human Rights Groups: Israel’s Far-right Channel 14 Has Called for Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza More Than 50 Times, Haaretz (Sept. 24, 2024), available at: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-09-24/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israels-channel-14-has-repeatedly-called-for-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/00000192-1f2e-d515-a1fa-5f3e99550000.

[2] Ivana Kottasová, Abeer Salman, For first time, two leading Israeli human rights groups accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza, CNN (July 30, 2025), available at: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/28/middleeast/israeli-human-rights-group-accuses-israel-genocide-gaza-intl.

[3] Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January 204, I.C.J. Reports 2024, p. 29, ¶ 79, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf.

[4] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9 1948, S. Exec. Doc. O, 81-1 (1949), available at: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf ; The United Nations Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf.

[5] Secretary-General Launches United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action against Hate Speech, Designating Special Adviser on Genocide Prevention as Focal Point, U.N. Press Release PI/2264-SOC/4881 (June 18, 2019), available at: https://press.un.org/en/2019/pi2264.doc.htm.

[6] genocide, Wex (Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute) (last reviewed Jan. 2023), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide.

[7] Mark Klamberg, Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility, in Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court 261, 271 n.272 (Mark Klamberg ed., 2017)

[8] The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze (Appeal Judgment), ¶ 678 available at: https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/ictr/2007/en/91996.

[9] Id. at ¶ 6.

[10] Sophia Kagan, The “Media case” before the Rwanda Tribunal: The Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, 3 Hague Justice J. 1, 83 (2008), available at: https://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/HJJ-JJH/Vol_3(1)/Media_Case_Kagan_EN.pdf; (“Kagan”).

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Scott Strauss, Rwanda and RTLM Radio Media Effects, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum at 1 (Apr. 23, 2010), available at: https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20100423-atrauss-rtlm-radio-hate.pdf.

[14] Nahimana et al. Appeals Judgement, ¶ 726.

[15] Kagan at 87.

[16] Nahimana et al. Appeals Judgement, ¶ 758.

[17] Id. ¶ 822.

[18] Id. ¶¶ 839, 842.

[19] Id. ¶ 789.

[20] Id. ¶¶ 798–856.

[21] Id. ¶¶ 636.

[22] Id. ¶¶ 677.

[23] Richard A. Wilson, Inciting Genocide With Words, 36 Mich. J. of Int’l L. 277, 278 (2015), available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=mjil.

[24] Nahimana et al. Appeals Judgement, ¶ 678.

[25] Gregory S. Gordon, From Incitement to Indictment – Prosecuting Iran’s President for Advocating Israel’s Destruction and Piecing Together Incitement Law’s Emerging Analytical Framework, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 853, 907 (2008); available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7297&context=jclc.

[26] S.C. Res. 955 (1994), U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (Nov. 8, 1994), available at:

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/198038?ln=en&v=pdf.

[27] Security Council Meeting No. 3453, U.N. Doc. S/PV.3453 (November 8, 1994), available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/PV.3453.

[28] Id.

[29] Arwa Mahdawi, ‘Gaza must be eliminated’: Israel’s airwaves are filled with pro-genocide propaganda, The Guardian (June 27, 2025), available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/27/israel-gaza-propaganda.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] Jaya Élise Bordeleau-Cass, The ‘Accountability Gap’: Holding Corporations Liable for International Crimes, 3 Global Justice Journal 65 (2019), available at: https://globaljustice.queenslaw.ca/news/the-accountability-gap-holding-corporations-liable-for-international-crimes.

[33] The State Parties to the Rome Statute, ICC (date accesed: Sept. 6, 2025), available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties.

[34] Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), available at: https://youtu.be/vuDsuQcbXzc?t=46.