[lkrubner]

You are making up your own, personal definition of genocide. But "genocide" has a specific definition under international law, and it is a crime of intent. Israel clearly had no intent to permanently remove the people of Gaza, since Israel was happy to sign a ceasefire as soon as they could get their hostages back. Everything else that occurred is just ordinary war. Without the intent to permanently erase a culture or a people, it cannot be genocide under the law, since the intent is missing.

There is the separate issue of war crimes. Some commanders in the IDF may not have shown due caution towards civilians. That will eventually be adjudicated in the courts. But that is a separate charge and has nothing to do with genocide.

I remain baffled why some people want to take the various charges that could be made against Israel and conflate all of the charges with the charge of genocide. The charge of genocide has become deeply attractive to a large number of people, even when other charges would be easier to prove and have more evidence to support them. But for some reason "war crime" is not as attractive as "genocide" and so supporters of the people of Gaza have developed an emotional commitment to fighting for the charge which they cannot possibly prove, because events have undermined their narrative.

[nashashmi]

Israel was “happy” to sign a ceasefire? Have you seen the Israeli commentary on the ceasefire?

[immibis]

also why are they still sniping journalists if there's a ceasefire?