Article Title: Genocide by Algorithm in Gaza: Artificial Intelligence, Countervailing Responsibility, and the Corruption of Public Discourse
Author: Branislav Radeljić
Journal: Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal (GSP)
Publication Year: 2026
The war in Gaza can be regarded as one of the most prominent contemporary examples of the intersection between emerging technologies and organized violence—a war in which artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems have increasingly assumed roles in surveillance, the identification and classification of targets, military decision-making, and even the management and representation of information. Alongside the growing speed and scale of military operations, the expanding use of these technologies has raised serious questions concerning human responsibility, mechanisms of accountability, and the role of states, military institutions, and technology companies in producing and facilitating violence.
Against this backdrop, the article examines the concept of “genocide by algorithm” through the case of the war in Gaza in order to explain the growing role of artificial intelligence in the production, organization, and representation of collective violence. It emphasizes that algorithmic systems are not neutral instruments; rather, they operate within structures of power, state and corporate interests, and ideological frameworks, and can accelerate and automate surveillance, targeting, military decision-making, and destruction. From this perspective, responsibility for algorithmic violence is distributed across a network of states, military institutions, technology companies, political decision-makers, and technical professionals, and accountability therefore cannot be confined to a single actor or institution.
The article further demonstrates that the impact of these technologies is not limited to the battlefield. Digital platforms, the media, universities, and public intellectuals may also contribute to the legitimization or concealment of violence through censorship, self-censorship, algorithmic bias, and the privileging of certain narratives. Artificial intelligence, therefore, is reshaping not only the ways in which violence is carried out, but also how it is perceived and represented, how knowledge about it is produced, and how future memory of the atrocities of war is formed.
Introduction
The article’s introduction focuses on the accelerating integration of artificial intelligence into military systems and argues that algorithmic technologies are not merely tools for improving precision. Rather, they function as epistemic infrastructures that classify individuals and populations as threats, targets, or collateral risk. The author contends that this algorithmic gaze can reproduce existing hierarchies in the valuation of human life and transform military norms by presenting decisions based on contested data and assumptions as objective and impartial. Gaza is presented as one of the clearest examples of this transformation, where systems such as “Gospel,” “Lavender,” and “Where’s Daddy” have been used to identify and prioritize targets. From this perspective, “genocide by algorithm” refers to a form of violence in which decisions about killing are delegated to opaque computational systems, thereby complicating the distinction between intentional and incidental harm, as well as the possibility of establishing genocidal intent.
On this basis, the article places three interconnected issues at the center of its analysis: the role and agency of artificial intelligence in warfare, the responsibility of state and non-state actors, and the erosion of critical discourse in the media, politics, and academia. The author argues that automated violence can enable states to shift responsibility onto machines, deny intent, and portray large-scale casualties as the result of algorithmic errors, while public discourse may also contribute to the normalization of this process and to the expansion of AI-driven militarism. Genocide by algorithm, therefore, is not merely a technological extension of earlier practices, but a reconfiguration of the conditions under which genocidal violence is produced, managed, and represented. This transformation highlights the need to rethink technological agency, moral responsibility, legal accountability, and the methodology of genocide studies.
Framing the Problem
This section critiques the conventional narrative that presents artificial intelligence as a neutral tool for improving military precision and reducing collateral damage. Drawing on critical approaches and science and technology studies, the author argues that algorithmic systems are sociotechnical constructs whose design and operation are shaped by institutional biases, power relations, ideology, and political objectives. Their incorporation into warfare blurs the distinction between combatants and civilians and complicates the concepts of moral and legal responsibility, since decisions are distributed across algorithm designers, data engineers, military commanders, and political leaders. This diffusion of responsibility can itself become a mechanism for evading accountability, allowing states to attribute civilian casualties to algorithmic errors or to the unintended consequences of computational decision-making.
Within this framework, Gaza is analyzed as a prominent example of the intersection between artificial intelligence, genocidal violence, and a settler-colonial structure. The author argues that algorithmic targeting can reinforce or automate surveillance, blockade enforcement, population displacement, and decisions concerning the destruction of civilian infrastructure, thereby bureaucratizing and technologizing the destruction of a national group. It is in this context that the concept of genocide by algorithm acquires particular significance, since it understands violence not merely as the product of individual intent, but as a phenomenon emerging from the interaction of engineered systems, political structures, and legitimizing discourses. Methodologically, the article draws on scholarly literature, policy documents, reports by non-governmental organizations, and investigative journalism, while emphasizing the difficulty of establishing causal links and assigning responsibility within opaque systems. It consequently calls for a rethinking of concepts such as technological agency, dignity, accountability, and the role of public discourse in normalizing or concealing AI-enabled violence.
The Perils of (Generative) AI
This section shows how the growing integration of artificial intelligence into Israel’s military and security apparatus has transformed AI from a merely technical tool into an active component of surveillance, data processing, and military decision-making. The reports cited in the article draw attention to the role of major technology companies in providing cloud, data, and surveillance infrastructure, pointing to the emergence of a network in which technology, the state, and the private sector are closely intertwined. From the author’s perspective, Palestine has, in this context, become a kind of laboratory for advanced surveillance and military technologies, where the large-scale collection and analysis of data, the classification of individuals, and the assignment of threat levels can make the exercise of violence faster, broader in scale, and more automated. Consequently, within a settler-colonial context, artificial intelligence is understood not simply as a means of increasing efficiency, but as part of a broader architecture of control, repression, and violence.
The author then problematizes the boundary between state and non-state agency in the field of artificial intelligence and emphasizes the close relationship among governments, technology companies, and algorithmic infrastructures. AI standards and systems are not neutral; rather, they are shaped by political, economic, and ideological interests and can diffuse responsibility across states, corporations, and technology itself. In the case of Gaza, U.S. political, financial, and military support for Israel, together with the provision of American AI technologies, brings the questions of complicity and state responsibility into sharper focus. On this basis, responsibility may arise not only from the wrongful use of artificial intelligence on the battlefield, but also from the negligent development or procurement of such technologies, as well as from states’ failure to ensure respect for international law by those who develop and deploy them.
The Puzzling Nature of Countervailing Responsibility
Drawing on the work of Michael M. Harmon, a distinguished scholar at George Washington University, this section treats responsibility as a multilayered concept operating at three levels—political, professional, and personal—that are not necessarily always compatible with one another. Political responsibility concerns accountability to authority, norms, and legal rules; professional responsibility emphasizes adherence to specialized standards and professional ethics; and personal responsibility refers to an individual’s moral judgment and self-reflection regarding the consequences of their actions. The central complexity arises when what is regarded as a political or organizational duty comes into conflict with professional commitments or an individual’s moral conscience.
Within the framework of genocide by algorithm, the author extends these three levels of responsibility across a broad chain of actors. The Israeli state and military bear political responsibility for how algorithmic systems are used and for compliance with international law. Major technology companies and their specialists may likewise bear professional—and, in some cases, political—responsibility if they design, supply, or support systems that contribute to large-scale human rights violations. The same logic is applied to foreign governments, particularly the United States, since military assistance, intelligence sharing, or technology transfers may raise questions of responsibility and complicity. Accordingly, accountability should encompass the entire AI lifecycle, from data collection, system design, and model training to deployment and military use.
At the personal level, responsibility still rests with the human beings who design, authorize, operate, or support these systems—from military commanders and political officials to engineers, analysts, and corporate executives. The article does not argue that the algorithm itself possesses genocidal intent. Rather, technology reconfigures the ways in which intent and responsibility are distributed, enacted, and obscured within sociotechnical networks. The diffusion of responsibility, therefore, should not result in the disappearance of accountability. The author ultimately suggests that confronting this situation requires a multilayered approach encompassing legal reform, professional accountability, independent oversight, whistleblowing, and public engagement.
The Public between Protest and Self-Censorship
This section understands artificial intelligence not merely as a technical tool, but as a sociotechnical and discursive force capable of channeling voices, organizing meaning, and shaping the boundaries of participation in the public sphere. From the author’s perspective, the concentration of power in the hands of political elites, technology companies, and platform owners has blurred the line between public and private interests and exposed citizens to new forms of soft control. Surveillance capitalism, data monopolies, and digital authoritarianism can constrain protest, boycotts, and other forms of political action, transforming citizens from agents of change into passive participants. Within this framework, artificial intelligence—through normalization, surveillance, content prioritization, and the regulation of access to information—can influence both political behavior and the extent of self-censorship.
This dynamic has become visible in the Gaza war in both physical and digital arenas. Heavy-handed responses to pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses and in the streets of the United States and Europe, together with political and legal threats, can raise the costs of protest and contribute to self-censorship. In the online sphere, automated content removal, algorithmic bias, the dissemination of misinformation, and the privileging of certain narratives have affected the ability to advocate for Palestinian rights. Referring to the practices of platforms such as Meta, the author argues that control over the flow of information can shape freedom of expression and even public perceptions of international conflicts, such that algorithms become not merely reflections of political conflict but part of the very battleground over narrative and legitimacy.
The final part of this section focuses on the crisis of public intellectualism and collective memory. Intellectuals face a difficult dilemma: either align themselves with dominant discourse and risk complicity, or oppose it and face exclusion, marginalization, and self-censorship, while universities and research institutions may also prioritize status and financial interests over ethical positioning. At the same time, artificial intelligence can play a decisive role in shaping future memory of atrocities; however, if Palestinian data and narratives are censored or distorted, the same asymmetries of power may be reproduced in historical memory. The author therefore calls for the use of artificial intelligence within a decolonial and justice-oriented framework aimed at preserving truth, accountability, and collective remembrance.
Conclusion
The article’s conclusion emphasizes that genocide by algorithm in Gaza must be examined simultaneously from the perspectives of the ethics and politics of artificial intelligence in warfare, the distribution of responsibility, and the role of public discourse in legitimizing technologically mediated violence. Algorithms can not only contribute to the production and representation of violence, but also affect evidence collection, early warning, legal intervention, and public mobilization, while at the same time diffusing responsibility across multiple actors. Genocide studies, therefore, is compelled not only to rethink its conceptual and methodological frameworks, but also to develop greater technical capacity and to treat AI ethics as a central concern in the analysis of contemporary violence.
The article distributes responsibility across three levels—political, professional, and personal—and demonstrates that algorithmic violence is not the product of a single actor, but rather the outcome of interconnected failures involving states, military institutions, technology companies, and individuals. At a broader level, the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence may enable governments and corporations to bypass mechanisms of accountability and even influence the boundary between democratic and authoritarian modes of governance. The future of AI ethics and governance, therefore, should not be left solely in the hands of engineers, corporations, or policymakers; rather, it requires broad-based democratic participation and the prioritization of the voices of those groups most vulnerable to exclusion and harm by these systems.
Note
Radeljić, Branislav. (2026). Genocide by Algorithm in Gaza: Artificial Intelligence, Countervailing Responsibility, and the Corruption of Public Discourse. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 20(1), 4–37. DOI: 10.5038/1911-9933.20.1.2074
