Genocide by Algorithm in Gaza: Artificial Intelligence, Countervailing Responsibility, and the Corruption of Public Discourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09202v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 21:10:52 GMT
• Title: Genocide by Algorithm in Gaza: Artificial Intelligence, Countervailing Responsibility, and the Corruption of Public Discourse
• Authors: Branislav Radeljic,
• Abstract summary: The accelerating militarization of artificial intelligence has transformed the ethics, politics, and governance of warfare.<n>This article interrogates how AI-driven targeting systems function as infrastructures that classify, legitimize, and execute violence.<n>The Gaza case reveals AI not as a neutral instrument but as an active participant in the reproduction of colonial hierarchies and the normalization of atrocity.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The accelerating militarization of artificial intelligence has transformed the ethics, politics, and governance of warfare. This article interrogates how AI-driven targeting systems function as epistemic infrastructures that classify, legitimize, and execute violence, using Israel's conduct in Gaza as a paradigmatic case. Through the lens of responsibility, the article examines three interrelated dimensions: (a) political responsibility, exploring how states exploit AI to accelerate warfare while evading accountability; (b) professional responsibility, addressing the complicity of technologists, engineers, and defense contractors in the weaponization of data; and (c) personal responsibility, probing the moral agency of individuals who participate in or resist algorithmic governance. This is complemented by an examination of the position and influence of those participating in public discourse, whose narratives often obscure or normalize AI-enabled violence. The Gaza case reveals AI not as a neutral instrument but as an active participant in the reproduction of colonial hierarchies and the normalization of atrocity. Ultimately, the paper calls for a reframing of technological agency and accountability in the age of automated warfare. It concludes that confronting algorithmic violence demands a democratization of AI ethics, one that resists technocratic fatalism and centers the lived realities of those most affected by high-tech militarism.

Related papers

• Operational Agency: A Permeable Legal Fiction for Tracing Culpability in AI Systems [0.31061678033205636]
  This Article introduces Operational Agency (OA)-a permeable legal fiction structured as an ex post evidentiary framework-and Operational Agency Graph (OAG)<n>OA evaluates an AI's observable operational characteristics.<n>OAG operationalizes that analysis by embedding these characteristics in a causal graph to trace and apportion culpability among developers, fine-tuners, deployers, and users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T01:49:03Z)
• Three Lenses on the AI Revolution: Risk, Transformation, Continuity [1.5567685129899713]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as both a continuation of historical technological revolutions and a potential rupture with them.<n>This paper argues that AI must be viewed simultaneously through three lenses: textitrisk, where it resembles nuclear technology in its irreversible and global externalities; textittransformation, where it parallels the Industrial Revolution as a general-purpose technology driving productivity and reorganization of labor; and textitcontinuity, where it extends the fifty-year arc of computing revolutions from personal computing to the internet to mobile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T14:53:49Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Designing AI-Enabled Countermeasures to Cognitive Warfare [0.0]
  Foreign information operations on social media platforms pose significant risks to democratic societies.<n>With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this threat is likely to intensify, potentially overwhelming human defenders.<n>This paper proposes possible AI-enabled countermeasures against cognitive warfare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T11:36:03Z)
• Authoritarian Recursions: How Fiction, History, and AI Reinforce Control in Education, Warfare, and Discourse [0.0]
  Article theorizes how AI systems consolidate institutional control across education, warfare, and digital discourse.<n>Case studies are analyzed alongside cultural imaginaries such as Orwell's textitNineteen Eighty-Four, Skynet, and textitBlack Mirror, used as tools to surface ethical blind spots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:01:26Z)
• Who is Responsible When AI Fails? Mapping Causes, Entities, and Consequences of AI Privacy and Ethical Incidents [31.53910982726317]
  We analyzed 202 real-world AI privacy and ethical incidents to develop a taxonomy.<n>Our findings reveal widespread harms from poor organizational decisions and legal non-compliance.<n>Our findings provide actionable guidance for policymakers and practitioners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T21:57:38Z)
• AI threats to national security can be countered through an incident regime [55.2480439325792]
  We propose a legally mandated post-deployment AI incident regime that aims to counter potential national security threats from AI systems.<n>Our proposed AI incident regime is split into three phases. The first phase revolves around a novel operationalization of what counts as an 'AI incident'<n>The second and third phases spell out that AI providers should notify a government agency about incidents, and that the government agency should be involved in amending AI providers' security and safety procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T17:51:50Z)
• Superintelligence Strategy: Expert Version [64.7113737051525]
  Destabilizing AI developments could raise the odds of great-power conflict.<n>Superintelligence -- AI vastly better than humans at nearly all cognitive tasks -- is now anticipated by AI researchers.<n>We introduce the concept of Mutual Assured AI Malfunction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T17:53:24Z)
• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Bad, mad, and cooked: Moral responsibility for civilian harms in human-AI military teams [0.0]
  This chapter explores moral responsibility for civilian harms by human-artificial intelligence (AI) teams. increasingly militaries may 'cook' their good apples by putting them in untenable decision-making environments. This chapter offers new mechanisms to map out conditions for moral responsibility in human-AI teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T10:18:20Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• In Oxford Handbook on AI Governance: The Role of Workers in AI Ethics and Governance [0.0]
  This chapter looks at the role that workers play in identifying and mitigating harms from AI technologies. There is high consensus in the AI ethics community on the benefits of reducing harms but less consensus on mechanisms for determining or addressing harms. This chapter argues that workers occupy a unique role in identifying and mitigating harms caused by AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-05T13:18:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.