General Discussion

I agree one should not be ignorant of the definition of genocide, and I'm not talking about the one in the Oxford Dictionary.

According to international law, the physical element of genocide is defined as:

So killing at least 15,000 plus 7,000 presumed dead under rubble, and injuring at least 35,000 with unknown number more killed/injured - that seems not high enough for some to consider it genocide. I don't know what the magic number could be, but that is a lot of human suffering. Not counting the mental anguish and harm to the rest of the group, which you'll note is also included.

Whether Israel has the intent or not - intent being difficult to prove - the actual acts committed could be interpreted as falling under genocidal acts.

The most worrying to me is the conditions of life created (with intent, in my view) and the impending human costs, which could be catastrophic.

In that case the debate should be over, but we'll still have doubters.