I understand the bullet points were brief (and a bit cheeky yeah) but I think it helps to focus if you want the conversation to be productive. Like we could argue for days about a single “full version” of one of the bullet points. I think I do understand what you’re saying, though.
But in international law, genocide has a specific definition (sure you have seen it but just to be clear):
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
When people say Israel is committing genocide they mean “they are doing this stuff.” Bearing in mind that any one is enough, the third act is clearly being done, for example. Israeli officials announced that they would purposefully be cutting off food and water to the civilians of Gaza. Having no food and water is clearly a condition that brings about destruction of life. The situation was created purposefully, announced beforehand and the consequences of this are being seen (yes people were talking about it sooner but, you know, we understand what happens if people don’t have food). Oh yeah and are you sick? Bad news, no hospitals.
There is no “unless a terrorist organisation is there” caveat to this, at least from my understanding. It is an act of genocide. We could do this for the first three or four pretty convincingly.
In law it’s called transferred intent. If you commit an armed bank robbery and a responding police officer shoots at you but hits and kills a family crossing the street, you are charged for their deaths since their deaths were within the range of probable consequences of committing armed robbery
I’m not sure this applies to genocide, but is “starving children to death” in the range of probable consequences of someone from the same place as you committing an atrocity? Is this an expected consequence? This is absurd, surely.
So from your explanations I’m still confused. Do you accept that Israel is committing acts of genocide, by this definition?
Then the only thing left is intent. But I feel like the amalek thing alone is pretty damning. Especially given IDF chanting it on the ground too. South Africa made a very convincing case for this overall.
Is your point that, “yes, these things would be genocide but some of the key foundations of the argument are false or misinformation”?
It seems very obvious to me that people who say Israel is commiting genocide or is an apartheid state are anti semitic or bad faith actors applying a double standard to Israel in order to sway opinion to their self interests, they are themselves anti semites, or they are basing their assessment on the aforementioned falsely colored factual circumstances, on lies and exaggeration, mixed with unfortunate truths.
I think by your estimation I would be using “falsely colored factual circumstances” etc? It seems a bit dangerous to assume bad faith when an international court has ruled that this is not an unreasonable accusation.