Every family has a story; some entail accounts of contractors, a long line of teachers, or generations of lawyers. Others may come with thrilling traditions and memories. My family’s story is one of refugees—refugees that overcame genocide. Although this label is not the only way to characterize my loved ones—they are also educators, students, professionals, musicians, and so much more—this label lays the foundation for the ways in which they live their lives day in and day out. Their story entails survival, bravery, and loss; their history chronicles the very moments in time that have shaped who they have become. Though my family’s story as refugees began in the 1990s, the plague of genocide did not begin nor stop there. 

This blog post will provide a brief historical background comparing the devastating circumstances in the Bosnian genocide in Srebrenica and the current genocide occurring in Palestine. It will analyze the role the United States has played in genocide and the legal framework that the nation follows in response to such global event. Further analysis will consider what actions were taken and what actions failed to be taken regarding the two aforementioned genocides. The post will then conclude with a call to action.

What is genocide? When does a war become one? In December 1946, the General Assembly of the United Nations created the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the Genocide Convention), which was approved and ratified among the world’s most powerful nations.[1] The 1948 Genocide Convention recognized that genocide was “a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world [. . . ].”[2] Genocide was defined as any act “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” by means of “(a) [k]illing members of the group; (b) [c]ausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) [d]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) [i]mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [or] (e) [f]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[3] The crime of genocide is established when two elements are shown: “[1.] [a] mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; and [2.] [a] physical element, which includes [one of the five acts above].”[4] To constitute a genocide, it must be clearly proven that victims are “deliberately targeted” as a collective because of their actual or perceived participation in the specific group.[5]

Among the contracting parties to the Genocide Convention was the United States, which signed the agreement in 1948; however, it did not ratify it until 1988, after the Senate initially opposed it due to its opponents’ concerns about the convention undermining the U.S. Constitution.[6] In addition to recognizing genocide as an international crime, the United States and the other nations also agreed “to prevent and to punish” said crime.[7]This duty to prevent genocide has been imposed “on any State party which, in a given situation, has it in its power to contribute to restraining in any degree the commission of genocide.”[8] This language suggests that parties that agree to the Genocide Convention agree to undertake the duty to prevent genocide across borders—this duty is not limited to the signatory’s borders alone. Further, “a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.”[9] The scope of this duty is not explicitly defined by the Genocide Convention; however, the legal duty to comply with preventing genocide suggests that passivity and inaction are inconsistent with the Convention’s intent..[10]At a minimum, contracting countries “must do at least something to prevent genocide.”[11] Typically, this begins with “words rather than stronger actions such as, for example, diplomatic negotiations or [. . .] participation in collective (military) interventions”[12] and “at least [...] denominate[s] the specific situation genocide; more specifically: [naming] the actions referred to.”[13] Naming the catastrophic events as what they are strengthens global awareness and furthers the purpose of the Genocide Convention.[14]

While formal recognition of such atrocities may carry political consequences , such acknowledgement clarifies and confirms the gravity and devastation of the genocide, and amplifies global awareness through the voices of powerful world leaders themselves.[15] After formally recognizing a genocide, contracting countries have further obligations to prosecute and penalize the perpetrators of genocide accordingly. [16] Although ambiguity remains regarding what the duty to prevent looks like, it is clear that inaction is not an option. Using the powerful voice of a nation is a powerful starting point—a starting point that can “potentially prevent further or similar actions from being committed.”[17] Words hold power and have the potential to change the trajectory of history altogether.

The Bosnian war started in 1992 after Bosnia declared independence from the former country of Yugoslavia.[18] The war continued until 1995, upon which the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Tribunal found genocide to have occurred during the war in Srebrenica, a small town surrounded by mountains in Eastern Bosnia.[19] The Court and Tribunal declared that a genocide had occurred in Srebrenica after finding the two elements of genocide—mental and physical—satisfied.[20] The Court held that the first element was satisfied after it found that the “acts committed [in] Srebrenica [. . .] were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of [. . .] Muslims [in] Bosnia [. . .].”[21] The Court also found the second element to be satisfied after finding that “members of the protected group [the Bosnian Muslims] were [. . .] victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape, and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm [. . .].”[22] Prior to this official declaration, over 8,000 men and boys were killed—only a comparatively small portion of the more than 100,000 lost in the span of the three-year war.[23] This atrocity not only caused the loss of many lives, but also resulted in the separation of families, destruction of long-standing homes, and furtherance of discussions surrounding genocide. 

The United States specifically played a role in ending the war by mediating the 1995 Dayton agreement.[24] In addition to putting an end to the devastating war, it also laid out the structure for what the country’s government system would look like moving forward, dividing it into two entities: the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, led by a three-chair presidency consisting of one representative for each of the three major ethnic groups: the Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs.[25] In 2005, Congress officially declared the Srebrenica massacre a genocide.[26] Despite this recognition and agreement, little has been done to reform Bosnia post-Dayton. With ethnic lines and divisions still persisting, some regions within the country continue to feel “as tense as before the war,” and the nation faces economic struggles due to a lack of structured reforms and a cooperative system.[27] Though the United States helped Bosnia emerge from war and genocide, this stagnancy raises the question whether there is also a duty, under the Genocide Convention, for contracting nations to assist with post-war and genocide recovery. Though poverty and underdevelopment can result from war, a struggling economy, high unemployment rates, and poor government structure also can cause such wars to repeat.[28]

Today, the genocide occurring in Palestine has many similarities to those that took place in Bosnia.[29] Beginning on the Gaza Strip in 1948, it has persisted for 76 years.[30] Similar to Bosnia, the conflict has resulted in thousands of Palestinian civilians being displaced and/or killed, and their properties obliterated.[31] Unlike the Bosnian genocide, however, the United States has not effectively exercised its duty to prevent genocide, despite its massive global power and ability to do so. In contrast to the mediator role the United States played in 1995 and its recognition of genocide in 2005, it has not reached the same conclusion regarding the Gaza conflict following the Hamas attack in 2023. More than 200,000 Palestinian lives have been recorded as lost on the Gazan Strip; an independent commission of the United Nations has concluded that “the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”[32] Although a ceasefire agreement is currently being implemented with the assistance of the United States, the United States has still failed to practice its affirmative duty to prevent and respond to genocide.[33]By supplementing Isreal with billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, the United States has violated its duty to prevent genocide.[34] The US has long been providing Israel with financial aid, where “Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its founding,” exponentially exceeding its Middle Eastern neighbors.[35] Since 1946, the United States has provided at least $244 billion in military aid and $86 billion in economic aid to Israel, compared to the $96 billion provided to the second-highest recipient, Egypt.[36] This aid includes military equipment and arms, such as bombs, artillery ammunition, and rockets supplied to Israel. [37] Despite Israel initially agreeing to utilize the weapons “in self-defense,” these weapons have been used to power the “heavy air and ground assaults on Gaza,” in addition to obstructing aid to the Palestinian people living in the enclave, who continue to face shortages of food, medicine, and other basic necessities.[38] Further, the United States has failed to affirm the United Nations’ declaration of genocide, despite both of the elements required being met. 

This decision made by U.S. leaders is “neither unique nor unexpected,” as the U.S. “has repeatedly denied, downplayed and covered up for atrocities committed by allies using American weaponry [. . .].”[39] Although loyalty to the Israeli government may be the driving factor of this decision, the moral and harmful implications of these choices are obvious. Importantly, they directly challenge international law norms and their efforts to prevent such tragedies in the future. Despite the United States’ inaction, the United Nations’ independent council has declared that genocide has been committed in Palestine. In 2025, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations found the elements of genocide to be satisfied concluding that: (1) intent was established via statements made by Israeli officials and (2) Israel had committed four of the acts specified to show the physical element.[40] The argument that Israel never intended to directly target Palestinians, as opposed to only Hamas, is weak. Since October 2023, the Human Rights Council has found that Israeli security forces have carried out mass killings and inflicted serious harms on Palestinian women and children, as well as deliberately targeting and destroying Palestinian religious and cultural sites in Gaza.[41] By failing to recognize the atrocities in Palestine as a genocide, the United States has not only actively turned a blind eye to the exponential loss of innocent lives, but has also denied Palestinians the opportunity to begin recovering from the mass destruction of their homeland. A declaration of genocide could mobilize the international community and enable “an influx of humanitarian aid [and] economic sanctions”.[42] Even more importantly, the United States would be fulfilling its international obligations while also offering those who have lost and suffered a sense of recognition and justice. 

The United States has historically involved itself in matters concerning genocide. From agreeing to abide by the provisions of the Genocide Convention, to stepping in and “resolving” the conflicts in the Balkans, to calling for a ceasefire in the Palestinian genocide today, the United States has played a key role.[43] Despite the positive outcomes that have resulted from its actions, the United States has also had shortcomings in each of these efforts. First, although a resolution was reached in the 1990s conflicts and genocide was declared in 2005, there is reason to believe that more could have been done to help Bosnia recover. The aid that could have been provided soon after the genocide to assist this recovery could have ranged from financial aid to implementing employment opportunities within the country. Now, thirty-years removed from the events, the United States’ imperative role remains vital. The war-torn country, still experiencing economic struggles and tense political environments, has not been provided the opportunity to reform and the guidance required to overcome devastation like Srebrenica 1995.[44] To alleviate these struggles, the United States and other international leaders must move away from their acceptance of the “frozen” nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina by choosing reform instead, no matter how risky.[45] This reform can start with coordinating and empowering new generations of leaders within the country.[46] By using past experiences and their knowledge, nations like the United States can provide the guidance necessary to navigate issues, such as integrating diverse groups and rebuilding trust between the people and their respective government(s).[47] Furthermore, the United States continues to violate its commitment to the Genocide Convention by failing to declare the conflict in Gaza to be a genocide against Palestinians, thereby denying impacted people complete access to humanitarian aid, recovery, and global recognition.[48]

Genocide is not a question of religion or region. Genocide is not a question of power. Genocide is a question of whether humanity and lives are deemed worthy of the attention, contribution, and active participation of the world leaders of today and tomorrow.