“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
The intent “to destroy whole or in part” is not there. If Israel had the intent to eradicade the people of Gaza it could have easily done so for a long time. That is not “mental gymnastics” but a matter of intent, as stated in your definition. They take into account that many, many innocent people in Gaza are killed as collaterals in their fight to destroy Hamas, but Israel actually wanting to eradicate the populace would look very different. I’m open to change my view the coming weeks but I don’t see Israel eradicating them. I also accept that you vehemently disagree with me on this.
On the other hand Hamas has put the intent of the complete destruction of Israel in its founding charter - one can easily claim that every attack on Israel by Hamas is an act of genocide.
I think the intent is there.
You cannot explain cutting off water and food supplies. You just can’t. You don’t cut off water without intent.
You don’t box in civilians and destroy the only route they can take to get out of the region. It’s not possible to do this without intent.
Vehemently disagreements can be healthy but not when people are fucking dying.
The total blockade of water and food is a very sharp sword that I hope will be lifted quickly as it was an overly brutal reaction to the attack. It could have been considered as an immense pressure to release the hostages from Gaza without boming the place but that did not manifest as Israel decided to attack anyways.
Do you think that Egypt is also complicit in the genocide against the people of Gaza, as they are also carrying the blockade?
