Ezra Klein Unwittingly Makes the Case for Charging Hamas and Iran with Genocide
Ezra Klein Unwittingly Makes the Case for Charging Hamas and Iran with Genocide
Ezra Klein’s August 13, 2025, New York Times interview with Philippe Sands—titled “When is Genocide”—was clearly intended to frame Israel as committing genocide. Klein goes to great lengths, spending over an hour and half, asking leading and accusatory questions of his guest, attempting to lead his guest and the listener to that conclusion. Yet, instead of accomplishing that goal, the conversation inadvertently accomplishes something quite different. It provides a clear legal framework and predicates, that with known facts taken into account, instead points squarely toward Hamas and its’ state sponsor, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the true perpetrators of genocide.
In the discussion, Sands makes very clear that the issue of intent is critical in determining whether genocide is being committed. What’s revealing is that Sands explanation of how to identify intent makes Hamas and Iran’s genocidal intent undeniable.
According to Sands there are two elements needed in order to judge whether intent exists. First, is an examination of a pattern of conduct and official statements, especially when the rhetoric comes from leaders acting in an official capacity. That assessment is made by looking at statements made in whole, or, in part, that form a pattern of behavior, rather than explicit orders. And second whether the officials in question acted on the expressed intent.
From Sands “You have to show a connection between the expression and the act on the ground. If the expression is made by a minister acting in an official capacity, it’s going to be much easier to show a connection … between an expression of genocidal intent as rhetoric … and the act of killing or targeting or exterminating on the ground.”
Apply those standards to Hamas and Iran, and the evidence is overwhelming. Hamas’s 1988 charter embeds a hadith calling for killing Jews (Article 7), defining its struggle against Jews as a group. The ideological roots of this program predate the State of Israel, running back to Muslim Brotherhood–linked anti-Jewish pogroms in the 1920s and 1930s.
After October 7, senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad vowed to “repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated.” Hamas has ruled Gaza since 2007, making its declarations and actions attributable to a governing authority. It is a matter of public record that Hamas’ October 7th attack against Israel was carried out as a critical step in their stated intent to destroy Israel. Direct statements from Hamas official Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, make this clear by explicitly framing Oct. 7 as the opening move of a campaign to destroy Israel:
- “We will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated.” (Interview on LBC TV, Oct. 24, 2023; MEMRI translation.)
- “The Al-Aqsa Deluge [Hamas’s name for the Oct. 7 onslaught] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth.” (The Times of Israel).
- When asked if this meant “the complete annihilation of Israel,” Hamad answered: “Yes, of course.” (The Times of Israel)
- “Israel is a country that has no place on our land… We must remove it… We are not ashamed to say this.” (The Times of Israel)
Iran’s commitment to wipe out Israel and their complicity in supporting Hamas has also been well documented. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called Israel a “cancerous tumor” that “must be eradicated.” US government reports document that Iran provides up to $100 million annually to Palestinian militant groups with other’s estimating it to be as high as $350 million. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, in a 2024 interview, stated that Hamas received $70 million in military aid from Iran. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran directly financed and equipped the October 7 attack. In Sands’s own terms, when eradicationist rhetoric is paired with concrete acts—financing, training, arming—courts can draw the “only reasonable inference” of genocidal intent.
Sands even concedes that if Raphaël Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide,” witnessed October 7, he would have classified it as such. The attack met multiple criteria in Article II of the Genocide Convention: killing group members, causing serious harm, and openly pledging to continue until the group is destroyed.
Their interview also preempts common rejoinders that seek to accuse Israel of committing genocide. To make that case, according to Sands it is critical to link a policy statement by a person acting in an official capacity to concrete actions. The claims that Israel has committed genocide however fail to meet that critical evidentiary bar. Israel’s objective, as clearly stated by Prime Minister Netanyahu, is to destroy Hamas, not to eradicate the Palestinian people. Compare that to Hamas’ declared aim of annihilating Israel and the Jewish people.
Ironically, Klein’s own framing clarifies the path forward. If the standard is long-term stated intent, sustained enabling by a state sponsor, and acts like October 7, the legal and moral case points directly at Hamas and Iran. The logical consequence is action: at the International Court of Justice, a state responsibility case against Iran for genocide, conspiracy, incitement, and complicity; and at the International Criminal Court or national courts, charges against Hamas leaders and relevant Iranian officials for genocide and related crimes.
Klein asked, “What is the social utility of the genocide label?” Here, the answer is precision. Applied consistently, the label fits Hamas and Iran most squarely placing accountability exactly where Lemkin meant it to fall.
