[mjamil]

The UN definition is quoted here:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

- Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; - Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; - Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; - Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Note that to meet this definition, the following conditions must be met (among others): 1. Intent to destroy must be present. 2. The intent must be to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. 3. The destruction can be serious bodily or mental harm, or it can mean creating conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of the group in whole or in part.

This means that: - people that believe that genocide must be about a race is misguided (it can be about a nationality, and Palestinians identify as a nationality that is recognized by over 75% of the countries in the UN); - the fact that there are Palestinians elsewhere (the West Bank and Jordan, as two examples) isn't relevant to deciding whether this is a genocide (since genocide can be about destruction targeted at a part of a group); and, - there are many examples of Israeli ministers and government personnel stating goals that sound genocidal, which people interpret to affirm intent.

IANAL, and genocide is a legal term, so I am not weighing in on this with a personal opinion, but it seems reasonable that laypeople, at least, can read that definition and reach the conclusion that Israel is committing genocide. The fact that various genocide scholars (including Omer Bartov at Brown); the Lemkin Institute (named after the Lemkin who coined the term genocide); HRW; Amnesty; MSF; and other institutions have called this a genocide is also probably helping laypeople believe the claim.

Finally, there is not just a moral imperative but a legal requirement under the Geneva Convention to feed people. Article 55 states that an occupying power is responsible for this.

[cm2012]

You can very easily reach the opposite conclusion too. See https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/im-a-war-scholar-there-is-no-gen...

[ivanech]

I would not debase myself by causing the starvation of children.

[actionfromafar]

Ah, I see, we must kill them all. Carry on then. Nothing to see here.

[TrackerFF]

Almost 100 years later, and it is still being debated whether or not Holodomor was genocide.

And one could argue that Holodomor was less "intentional" than what is going on in Gaza now.

So, I don't think we'll get any official status on this anytime soon.

[ars]

Israel is not an occupying power in Gaza, but rather a warring power. And Article 23 of the 4th Geneva Convention says:

".... are no serious reasons for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,"

i.e. if the warring party believes the supplies will be diverted they have no obligation to supply them.

And that's what is going on here.

[mjamil]

Thank you for your opinion (stated as a fact, I'll add) that Israel doesn't occupy Gaza. Can you please state your source for this belief?

To state why I believe Israel is occupying Gaza, I'll point out that Israel’s continued status as an occupying power has been affirmed repeatedly by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and human rights groups. Do you believe all of these entities are incorrect?

[rightbyte]

Diverted to where? It is one city.