Adam Brody, Compassion Does Not Require Joining This Chorus

I believe Israel did not commit genocide in Gaza. This open letter asks Adam Brody to withdraw his accusation — and challenges the idea that using the word “genocide” has become a prerequisite for caring about Palestinians.

Dear Mr. Brody,

“Put me down as thinking it’s a genocide,” you told GQ.

Put me down as asking you to recant.

I believe unequivocally that Israel did not commit genocide in Gaza. I share the conviction behind Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of the accusation as “the greatest lie of the century.” But my objection to your words does not depend on accepting a prime minister’s authority. It depends on the evidence—and on refusing to confuse a declaration of solidarity with a demonstrated conclusion.

What troubles me most is how this accusation can become a test of moral belonging.

Someone says, “Palestinian children must be protected.” They are told that is insufficient. Someone says, “This suffering must end.” Still insufficient. They must say “genocide.” Only then have they demonstrated that they care.

I reject that demand.

Palestinian lives matter before anyone chooses a slogan. Their protection should command support from people who disagree about the war. Making compassion conditional on accepting a particular accusation turns human suffering into a loyalty test.

I do not know whether you felt any such pressure. I will not invent your motives. But your declaration participates in a public conversation where qualification can be treated as cowardice and disagreement as indifference. In that atmosphere, repeating the accepted word is easier than explaining why one doubts it.

That makes independent judgment more necessary, not less.

Start with what the accusation means. Genocide requires specified acts committed with the intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, as such. The devastation of a war is relevant evidence, but it does not relieve an accuser of establishing that intent. Genocide Convention, Article II

Then remember why Israel went to war.

The Hamas-led assault of October 7, 2023, left approximately 1,200 people dead, most of them civilians. Attackers murdered people in their homes, attacked festivalgoers, and abducted children and elderly people. Jews and non-Jews were among their victims. No grievance justified those crimes.

Afterward, Hamas official Ghazi Hamad promised further October 7-style assaults until Israel was annihilated. Israel had every reason to take that threat seriously.

I regard October 7 as an expression of genocidal intent. Preventing its repetition, recovering the hostages, and dismantling Hamas’s capacity to carry out its threats were essential responsibilities of Israel’s government. Those objectives do not place every wartime decision beyond criticism. They are nevertheless central to an honest assessment of what Israel was fighting to accomplish.

So are the measures Israel took to protect civilians.

According to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, more than two million tons of food, water, medicine, and equipment had entered Gaza by September 2025. The IDF reported that, by March 31, 2024, it had sent approximately 15.5 million evacuation texts and 17 million recorded messages, and placed approximately 100,000 individual evacuation phone calls.

These are official Israeli figures, and they should withstand scrutiny. Supplies entering Gaza do not establish that every family received enough. Warnings must be assessed against civilians’ ability to reach safety. Israel’s own records also acknowledge the halt in aid entry between March 2 and May 19, 2025. A credible argument cannot omit that interruption.

But the aid and warnings cannot be omitted either. An accusation of an intent to destroy a people must explain the evidence of efforts to preserve their lives.

At the United Nations, Netanyahu attributed this assessment to urban-warfare expert John Spencer:

“Israel has done more to prevent civilian casualties in war than any other military in history.

That sweeping comparison is Spencer’s judgment, not a substitute for examining the record. The underlying question is what matters: Which precautions did Israel take, how did they function, and what do they reveal about intent? Your declaration gives us no indication of how you weighed them.

Israel’s military choices deserve examination too. It possessed the capacity to inflict far greater destruction rapidly, yet undertook prolonged ground operations at enormous cost to its own forces. The IDF’s page dated September 27, 2026, lists 472 soldiers killed in the Gaza ground operation.

Those deaths do not mathematically disprove genocide. They do demand that we take the campaign’s military objectives seriously. To me, the record supports a war to defeat Hamas and prevent another massacre, rather than a campaign to destroy Palestinians as a people.

I distrust the UN’s treatment of Israel. But neither my distrust nor your possible confidence in an institution can settle this question. The same standard must apply to everyone: evidence, reasoning, and engagement with facts that challenge the conclusion.

That standard becomes harder to maintain when an accusation acquires the status of a moral password. People learn which words bring acceptance. Reservations remain private. Public agreement appears more complete than it is. Eventually, asking for evidence can itself sound like a transgression.

Your prominence gives you an opportunity to resist that pressure.

Your Jewish identity does not obligate you to defend Israel’s government. Nor does it provide additional proof for your accusation. What matters is the judgment you have offered and the influence your voice gives it.

I am asking you to reconsider that judgment and withdraw the accusation. Continue advocating for Palestinian families. Demand humanitarian protection and accountability for wrongdoing. Those commitments lose nothing when separated from a charge I believe is false.

You do not have to choose between compassion and intellectual independence. You can insist on both.

Please reconsider, Mr. Brody. The courage to say “I was wrong” is worth more than the comfort of joining a chorus.

Sincerely,

Seth Eisenberg