Genocide is not a matter of the past; it is a pressing and living challenge that calls upon our collective conscience. Today, the world watches with anguish what is unfolding in Gaza, a reminder of the urgent need to take a clear and firm stand in defense of all life and in absolute rejection of those who carry out the systematic destruction of a people. Yet this horror is not confined to one place or time: it runs through recent history and has scarred many peoples in the 20th and 21st centuries. To remain silent is to be complicit; to raise our voices is an ethical duty that cannot be delayed.

I. The Outbreak of the Gaza War

The twenty-first century has not lacked for conflicts marked by mass atrocity, but the war that erupted on October 7, 2023, between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza represents one of the most devastating episodes of the current era. The conflict unfolded in real time before a global audience, broadcast through social media and news outlets, accompanied by a torrent of polarized interpretations. Yet beyond the media noise lies a reality of profound human suffering and destruction—one that international scholars have now described in terms of genocide.

To speak of genocide in connection with Gaza is a grave and somber undertaking. The term itself, born out of the Holocaust and codified in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, carries immense moral weight. Its invocation cannot be casual; it must be grounded in careful investigation and legal analysis. That is precisely what has been provided in two recent reports of the United Nations: first, the March 2024 presentation by Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, entitled Anatomy of a Genocide; and second, the September 2025 report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which concluded after exhaustive investigation that Israel had committed acts of genocide in Gaza.

The Horror of October 7

The war’s proximate cause was the coordinated assault launched on October 7, 2023, by Palestinian terrorist groups, namely Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel. The attack began with a massive barrage of rockets, overwhelming Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, followed by incursions by commandos who struck both military bases and civilian communities. The violence coincided with Simchat Torah, one of Judaism’s most joyous festivals, compounding the shock and trauma for the Israeli population.

The toll was staggering. More than 1,200 Israelis were killed that day, including hundreds of civilians murdered in their homes, at a music festival, and in small kibbutz near the Gaza border. Women, men, and children were slaughtered indiscriminately. Hostages numbering in the hundreds were seized and transported into Gaza, where many remain to this day under conditions that constitute grave breaches of international humanitarian law. The brutality of these attacks, documented by survivors and independent investigators, demands unambiguous condemnation. No cause can justify the deliberate targeting of civilians. The events of October 7 were acts of terrorism in the fullest sense, designed to instill fear and wreak maximum destruction.

To recognize the genocidal dynamics of the subsequent Israeli response does not in any way diminish the horror of October 7, nor the legitimacy of Israel’s right to defend its citizens against armed assault. The sanctity of life knows no political or national boundary.

The Israeli Response

What followed October 7, however, was a military response by the Israeli government and armed forces that quickly escalated into destruction on a scale unprecedented in the long history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. By the end of 2023, aerial bombardments had leveled large swaths of Gaza’s residential neighborhoods. By mid-2024, as Francesca Albanese reported, more Palestinians had been killed in the first five months of the war than in all previous conflicts since 2008 combined. By July 2025, the Commission of Inquiry confirmed over 60,000 Palestinian deaths, the majority of them women and children.

The devastation extended far beyond immediate fatalities. Gaza’s hospitals, schools, and universities were reduced to rubble. Access to food, clean water, and electricity was systematically obstructed. Humanitarian convoys were repeatedly blocked or bombed. Over 80 percent of Gaza’s population was forcibly displaced within the enclave’s 365 square kilometers, with families driven from one unsafe zone to another. Satellite imagery and field reports described a landscape of near-total destruction. Life expectancy in Gaza fell by nearly half in under two years.

The Israeli government has defended these actions as legitimate self-defense against terrorism, insisting that Hamas embeds itself within civilian infrastructure. International humanitarian law does recognize the complexity of asymmetric warfare, where combatants do not distinguish themselves from civilians. Yet both Albanese and the Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel’s conduct far exceeded the bounds of proportionality or distinction. The pattern of strikes, the obstruction of humanitarian relief, and public statements by Israeli officials suggested not isolated excesses but a systemic policy of collective destruction.

Naming Genocide

It is in this context that the reports used the language of genocide. Albanese’s Anatomy of a Genocide described Israel’s campaign as exhibiting a “genocidal logic” rooted in longstanding practices of dehumanization and structural oppression. The 2025 Commission report was even more categorical, concluding that Israel’s actions fulfilled both the material acts (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea) required under Article II of the Genocide Convention.

To apply this label is not to deny Israel’s right to exist, nor to diminish Jewish suffering past or present, nor to fuel antisemitism. On the contrary, it is to uphold the universality of the prohibition of genocide. The crime has no exceptions; it applies to all peoples and all states. To exempt any actor from scrutiny under this category would betray the legacy of Raphael Lemkin, the Holocaust survivor who coined the term, and the millions who perished in genocides thereafter.

II. Historical Roots and International Legal Framing

A History of Dispossession

The Palestinian experience of displacement traces back to the 1948 Arab–Israeli war, known to Palestinians as the Nakba (“catastrophe”). In that year, more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes during the conflict that accompanied Israel’s establishment. Many of those refugees and their descendants settled in Gaza, then under Egyptian control. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied Gaza, along with the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Although Israel withdrew its settlements and ground troops from Gaza in 2005, the territory remained under what international law terms “effective control,” exercised through tight restrictions on borders, airspace, maritime access, and economic life. Since 2007, after Hamas seized political power in Gaza, Israel, with Egyptian cooperation, has maintained a blockade described by the United Nations and humanitarian agencies as a form of collective punishment. This blockade has severely curtailed freedom of movement, crippled the economy, and left Gaza’s population dependent on international aid.

Repeated wars between Israel and Hamas—in 2008–09, 2012, 2014, and 2021—produced cycles of destruction and fragile ceasefires, with civilian populations bearing the brunt. Each conflict left Gaza’s infrastructure further weakened, its population more traumatized, and its youth more radicalized. Yet none of those episodes compared to the magnitude of devastation unleashed after October 7, 2023.

Structural Violence and the “Open-Air Prison”

International observers have long described Gaza as an “open-air prison,” where two million people live confined by borders they cannot cross, under surveillance from drones above and facing periodic bombardment from outside. Such conditions, endured over decades, created profound humanitarian vulnerability even before the most recent war. Poverty, unemployment, inadequate healthcare, and lack of potable water were daily realities.

Against this backdrop, the events of October 2023 were not an isolated eruption but a spark igniting long-accumulated tinder. For many Palestinians, the attacks—however indefensible—were born of despair and the absence of political alternatives. For Israelis, they were proof that coexistence with Hamas was impossible and that drastic measures were necessary to secure national survival. The asymmetry of power between the parties, however, is stark: a state with one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world against a territory under siege with no conventional defenses.

International Humanitarian Law and Genocide

The conduct of hostilities is governed by international humanitarian law (IHL), especially the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. These instruments require combatants to distinguish between civilians and military objectives, to avoid disproportionate attacks, and to ensure humanitarian access. Violations constitute war crimes.

The Genocide Convention of 1948 goes further. It prohibits acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Such acts include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children. Genocide is considered the “crime of crimes,” not only because of its gravity but because of the specific intent (dolus specialis) it requires.

Applying this framework to Gaza, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry in 2025 determined that the cumulative acts of the Israeli military campaign—mass killings, destruction of infrastructure essential for survival, systematic obstruction of humanitarian aid—combined with public statements by political and military leaders, demonstrated intent to destroy the Palestinian people of Gaza in substantial part. Albanese’s earlier report argued that Israel’s conduct reflected a “genocidal logic” rooted in longstanding policies of domination and dehumanization.

Balancing Condemnation

The challenge of such legal findings lies in their political and moral reception. Israel and its allies reject the characterization of genocide, insisting that the military campaign targeted Hamas, not the Palestinian people. Many Jews worldwide, acutely aware of the weaponization of antisemitic tropes, view the charge of genocide against Israel with profound pain and suspicion. At the same time, Palestinians and their supporters see in the UN reports validation of decades of suffering ignored by the international community.

It is crucial, therefore, to affirm two points simultaneously. First, condemning Hamas’s atrocities on October 7 and the group’s continuing rocket fire, tunnel warfare, and hostage-taking is non-negotiable. These acts are war crimes and crimes against humanity. Second, recognizing that Israel’s response has crossed into genocidal conduct does not deny the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination or the reality of antisemitism. Instead, it affirms that international law applies universally, to all actors, without exception.

The Responsibility of Third States

International law imposes obligations not only on perpetrators but also on third states. The Genocide Convention requires all signatories to prevent and punish genocide. This duty is not contingent on Security Council resolutions or on the geopolitical alignments of great powers; it is an erga omnes obligation, owed to the international community as a whole. The International Court of Justice, in its 2007 judgment on Bosnia v. Serbia, affirmed that states must act within their capacity to prevent genocide wherever it is at risk of occurring.

The reports on Gaza, therefore, implicate not only Israel and Hamas but also the wider community of nations. Those who supply arms, provide diplomatic cover, or obstruct humanitarian relief risk complicity in genocide. Those who remain silent in the face of overwhelming evidence betray the very norms established in the aftermath of World War II.

III. United Nations Investigations and the Gravity of Genocide

The Albanese Report: Anatomy of a Genocide

In March 2024, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, presented her findings after five months of intensive investigation. Her report bore a stark title: Anatomy of a Genocide.

Albanese’s analysis was methodical. She noted the extraordinary speed and magnitude of Palestinian civilian casualties: within just nine days of Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks, more Palestinians were killed than during the entire fifty-one days of the 2014 Gaza war. By March 2024, over 30,000 had perished, including more than 70 percent women and children. Albanese observed that the scale of killing, combined with the systematic targeting of residential neighborhoods, healthcare facilities, and schools, exceeded what could plausibly be justified as proportionate military action.

She further highlighted official Israeli rhetoric that dehumanized Palestinians, describing them as “human animals” and vowing to “erase” Gaza. When such rhetoric accompanies large-scale military operations and deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid, she argued, it evidences a “genocidal logic.” Her report stressed that genocide is not only an act of sudden annihilation but can also unfold as a process, driven by policies that collectively aim at the destruction of a people in whole or in part.

The Commission of Inquiry: Exhaustive Investigations

Albanese’s report, while powerful, was limited by the mandate and resources of a Special Rapporteur. By contrast, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory—established by the UN Human Rights Council—undertook what it called “exhaustive investigations” into the conflict from October 2023 through July 2025. Its September 16, 2025 report was unambiguous: Israel had committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

The Commission identified acts corresponding to Article II of the Genocide Convention:

• Killing members of the group: Tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, women, medical workers, and journalists, had been deliberately or indiscriminately killed.
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm: Survivors endured mass trauma, with widespread physical injury, psychological devastation, and family disintegration.
• Inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy: Systematic bombardment of infrastructure, denial of food, water, fuel, and medical care created conditions of near-famine and epidemic disease.
• Statements evidencing intent: Senior Israeli officials made public declarations about reducing Gaza to “a city of tents” and permanently depopulating it.

The Commission noted that Israel’s actions were not incidental excesses of war but part of a consistent strategy. The level of destruction and deprivation was such that, even if hostilities ceased, Gaza’s population could not easily recover. This, the Commission argued, demonstrated not only the actus reus (the material acts of genocide) but also the mens rea (the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group).

War Crimes on Both Sides

The Commission also examined the conduct of Palestinian armed groups. It condemned the October 7 attacks as war crimes and crimes against humanity: the mass killing of civilians, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate rocket fire were all clear violations of international law. The Commission rejected any attempt to justify such acts as resistance, noting that international law absolutely prohibits the targeting of civilians.

Still, the Commission underscored that one crime does not excuse another. The atrocities of October 7 did not absolve Israel of its obligations under international law. The prohibition of genocide is absolute.

The Weight of the Word

The decision to use the word “genocide” carries immense gravity. It is a legal determination but also a moral judgment. The Holocaust, which gave rise to the term, was perpetrated against the Jewish people, whose near-extermination has shaped global consciousness. To accuse the State of Israel of genocide against Palestinians is, therefore, laden with historical and emotional resonance.

Some reject the term as an attack on Jewish identity or as a form of antisemitism. Yet to deny its applicability where evidence warrants it risks hollowing out the universality of the crime. As Albanese emphasized, international law must be applied without fear or favor: “The prohibition of genocide was not meant to protect some peoples and not others”.

Ethical and Faith Implications

Beyond law and politics, the charge of genocide raises profound moral and theological questions. In Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions alike, human beings are created in the image of God (imago Dei, fitrah), endowed with inviolable dignity. Genocide, therefore, is not only a crime against humanity but also a sin against God. It seeks to obliterate that which God has declared sacred.

Theological reflection also emphasizes memory. The Hebrew Bible commands: Zakhor—“Remember.” The Christian tradition proclaims memory of Christ’s passion as salvific. In Islam, remembrance (dhikr) is central to faith. Genocide, by attempting to erase peoples and cultures, is an assault on memory itself. To name genocide truthfully is to resist that erasure.

Moreover, the Gaza war raises questions of complicity. International law recognizes that states providing arms or diplomatic cover to genocidal acts risk legal responsibility. Theologically, silence in the face of atrocity is itself sin. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed by the Nazis, declared: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.” The reports on Gaza challenge nations, churches, and communities of conscience: will they remain silent, or will they speak?

Bridging Compassion

The moral challenge is also relational. To recognize Palestinian suffering does not require diminishing Jewish suffering. To condemn Israeli policies does not necessitate antisemitism. On the contrary, true fidelity to the memory of the Holocaust demands universal vigilance: “Never Again” must mean never again for anyone. The memory of Jewish suffering should sharpen, not dull, our perception of Palestinian suffering. The sacredness of Israeli lives lost on October 7 must intensify, not relativize, the sacredness of Palestinian lives lost in the months since.

IV. Geopolitics, Complicity, and the Task of Scholarship

The Silence and Selectivity of Nations

The prohibition of genocide is recognized as jus cogens in international law—binding upon all states, without exception. Yet the Gaza war has once again exposed the selectivity and silence of the international system. Some powerful states, while condemning atrocities elsewhere, have provided military, financial, and diplomatic support for Israel’s campaign. Others have denounced Israel’s actions but remained hesitant to act decisively, fearing political costs or economic reprisals.

The result has been paralysis. Even as the Commission of Inquiry released its findings in September 2025, the UN Security Council remained deadlocked, with permanent members exercising vetoes that prevented collective enforcement. This echoes past failures in Rwanda (1994) and Srebrenica (1995), where international actors knew but did not intervene. The pattern of knowledge without action—documented again in Gaza—raises the haunting question of whether the global community has truly learned from history.

The Role of Arms and Aid

International complicity is not merely rhetorical but material. States supplying arms used in indiscriminate bombardments, or funding governments that obstruct humanitarian relief, risk complicity in genocide. The International Court of Justice has clarified that states have a duty not only to refrain from committing genocide but to prevent it. That includes withholding material support from perpetrators.

The reports of Albanese and the Commission highlight this dimension. Both noted that continued arms transfers from certain states facilitated the scale and intensity of Israel’s campaign. The implication is stark: genocide today is not only the work of perpetrators on the ground but of a wider network of enablers.

Media and Narrative

Genocide is not only physical but also narrative. Competing stories about Gaza have saturated media and social networks: on one side, emphasis on Hamas’s atrocities and Israel’s right to defend itself; on the other, images of Palestinian children pulled from rubble, mass graves, and famine conditions. Propaganda, denial, and distraction are part of genocidal processes. As the reports documented, Israeli officials often framed all Gazans as complicit with Hamas, blurring distinctions between combatants and civilians. Meanwhile, critics of Israeli policy were frequently smeared as antisemitic, silencing debate.

The challenge for scholarship is to cut through these distortions, to present evidence soberly, and to affirm both truths: that October 7 was a heinous crime, and that the response has been genocidal. Both can and must be acknowledged without contradiction.

Moral Responsibility

Faith traditions remind us that genocide is sin, desecration, and blasphemy against the Creator. For Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, the command to love neighbor, to defend the stranger, to protect the orphan and widow, speaks directly against collective destruction.

The Gaza war thus confronts faith communities with uncomfortable questions: Will they speak truth to power even when politically costly? Will they accompany victims without erasing the suffering of others? Will they confess complicity and silence where it has occurred? The UN reports, while juridical, are also moral indictments—not only of perpetrators but of bystanders.

Toward a Theology of “Never Again”

The phrase “Never Again” originated as a vow after the Holocaust, yet it has been betrayed repeatedly—in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Bosnia, in Darfur. Gaza represents another testing ground for whether that vow retains meaning. For Jewish memory, “Never Again” must not be relativized. For Palestinian survival, it must not be withheld. The task is to reclaim the phrase as genuinely universal: Never Again for anyone, anywhere.

A theology of “Never Again” would insist that every people is made in the divine image, that the destruction of one diminishes all, and that solidarity across divides is the only path to life. Such a theology would resist weaponizing memory, instead turning it into a resource for empathy and prevention.

— – —

The Gaza war is not only a regional tragedy but a global indictment. It reveals the fragility of international law, the selectivity of state responses, and the ease with which genocide can be denied, excused, or ignored. It also reveals the enduring need for interdisciplinary scholarship and moral courage.

Genocide is the gravest of human crimes, wherever and whenever it occurs, and that silence in its face is complicity. In the ashes of Gaza, as in the ruins of Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Auschwitz, the task of humanity is the same: to remember, to resist, and to hope.

— – —

Prayer For Peace and the End of War

— – —

To Learn More

Law, Memory, and Morality:
The Global Struggle Against Genocide

Learn more about the concept of genocide from different perspectives—historical, legal and political, sociological and anthropological, philosophical and ethical, as well as from a faith-based perspective—by downloading the following document:

Click on the image to download the 68-page PDF document.

 

Summary of the attached Document:

The term genocide, coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, names one of the most radical crimes in human history: the intentional destruction of entire peoples. While legal codification came with the 1948 UN Convention, the phenomenon itself has scarred every era, from ancient conquests to modern nation-states.

I. Historical Evolution of the Concept

Genocide emerged as a category in the wake of the Holocaust but draws on earlier experiences: the destruction of indigenous peoples in colonial expansion, the Armenian genocide of 1915, and the ideological wars of the 20th century. Historical analysis highlights several features:

• Genocide is systematic and intentional, not spontaneous chaos.
• It involves not only killing but cultural destruction, forced displacement, and erasure of memory.
• It thrives in moments of political crisis, when leaders exploit fear and division.
• Denial and forgetting are integral parts of genocidal processes.

History thus provides both empirical data and cautionary lessons, underscoring the cyclical vulnerability of minorities and the need for vigilance.

II. Legal and Political Perspectives

The UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups. While groundbreaking, this definition presents challenges:

• Exclusions: Political and social groups are omitted, limiting scope.
• Intent: Proving intent is difficult, leading to inconsistent prosecutions.
• Selectivity: International recognition is often shaped by political interests.

International tribunals (ICTY, ICTR, ICC) have clarified jurisprudence, affirming that genocide targets both physical existence and cultural identity. Yet prevention and accountability remain fragile, hindered by state sovereignty and geopolitical rivalries.

III. Sociological and Anthropological Perspectives

Sociology and anthropology explore the mechanisms by which societies move from prejudice to extermination. Key insights include:

• Stages of genocide: classification, symbolization, dehumanization, polarization, organization, extermination, denial (Stanton).
• Ordinary complicity: perpetrators are often ordinary people following orders, not “monsters.”
• Cultural targeting: anthropology underscores that genocide attacks memory, language, and tradition.
• Warning signs: polarization, propaganda, and militarization are reliable indicators.

These perspectives stress prevention: genocide is not inevitable but socially constructed and therefore can be disrupted.

IV. Philosophical and Ethical Perspectives

Philosophy interprets genocide as both radical evil and banal evil: extraordinary in its consequences, ordinary in its execution. Ethical debates center on:

• Responsibility: how far complicity extends among citizens, bureaucrats, and bystanders.
• Forgiveness: whether reconciliation is possible without justice.
• Memory: how to honor victims without perpetuating vengeance.

Philosophy insists that genocide is not merely political but existential: it threatens the meaning of humanity itself.

V. Contemporary Debates

The concept of genocide continues to evolve:

• Inclusion of groups: Should political, gender, or sexual minorities be protected?
• Ecocide: Can environmental destruction of peoples’ habitats be considered genocide?
• Digital dynamics: How does online propaganda accelerate dehumanization?

Scholars warn against “conceptual inflation” but recognize the need to adapt the concept to new realities.

VI. Catholic Perspectives

1. Biblical Foundations

Scripture affirms creation in God’s image, universal dignity, and the command to love enemies. Prophets denounced violence against peoples; Christ’s death and resurrection reveal divine solidarity with victims and judgment on violence.

2. Patristic Witness

The Fathers of the Church emphasized nonviolence, the limits of political authority, and the communal responsibility for the poor. Augustine’s just war theory set boundaries on violence, rejecting indiscriminate destruction.

3. Saints and Blessed

Across history, saints embodied resistance to exterminatory violence: early martyrs under Rome, Francis of Assisi during the Crusades, Edith Stein and Maximilian Kolbe in Auschwitz, Óscar Romero in El Salvador, the Buta seminarians in Rwanda. Their lives demonstrate sanctity as memory, solidarity, and hope.

4. Catholic Social Teaching

Key principles—dignity, common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, universal destination of goods—stand against genocidal ideologies. Vatican II explicitly condemned genocide as an “infamy.” Later encyclicals emphasized human rights, development, and reconciliation.

5. Papal Magisterium

• Leo XIII: affirmed dignity and justice.
• Pius XI and XII: denounced racism and totalitarianism.
• John XXIII and Vatican II: embraced human rights, condemned genocide explicitly, repudiated anti-Semitism.
• John Paul II: integrated Holocaust memory, condemned Armenian and Rwandan genocides, called for reconciliation.
• Benedict XVI: emphasized truth, memory, and purification.
• Francis: named genocides directly, apologized for complicity, advanced fraternity and integral ecology.

6. Theological Synthesis

Genocide is sin against God and humanity. It denies the Creator’s image, mutilates communion, and contradicts the Spirit’s sanctification of diversity. Yet theology proclaims hope: resurrection ensures no victim is forgotten, no people erased. The Church’s mission is to denounce, accompany, remember, reconcile, and hope.

VII. Integrated Lessons

1. Scholarship: Research must remain interdisciplinary, rigorous, and ethically engaged. Theology adds depth by naming genocide as sin and situating it in eschatological hope.
2. Policy: International law must be strengthened, prevention prioritized, and political selectivity resisted. Catholic principles—solidarity, subsidiarity, common good—offer normative grounding.
3. The Church: The Church must live what it teaches: vigilance, denunciation, solidarity with victims, memory of martyrs, and repentance for complicity. Pastoral practice must integrate prevention and reconciliation.
4. Humanity: The challenge of genocide is ultimately civilizational. Either humanity constructs a culture of fraternity or repeats cycles of destruction. Faith insists that fraternity is not naïve but the only realistic path forward.

Conclusion

Genocide is more than a legal category or a historical fact. It is humanity’s greatest betrayal of itself and its most direct rebellion against God. Interdisciplinary analysis reveals its mechanisms; theology discloses its spiritual depth. Together, they proclaim a common imperative: Never again.

For scholars, this means research that illuminates and warns. For policymakers, it means laws and institutions that prevent and protect. For the Church, it means prophetic witness, solidarity with victims, and commitment to reconciliation. For humanity, it means choosing life, dignity, and fraternity.

The final message of this study is hope. Even amid annihilation, the witness of saints, the proclamation of the gospel, and the resilience of survivors testify that life is stronger than death. The memory of victims is not erased but inscribed in the communion of humanity and the heart of God. The interdisciplinary and Catholic perspectives converge in a vocation: to embody solidarity, justice, and hope, ensuring that genocide has no place in humanity’s future.