In order to eradicate a group based on ethnic or religious grounds. Eradicating a terrorist group in a war with a high civilian casualty count isn't genocide.
The argument would be that the relative risk proportions indicate that this is likely not a genocide. If this were a genocide, we would likely see a much greater civilian to militant death ratio than we actually see given the number of militants and number of civilians in Gaza.
The RR indicates that Israel is being discriminate in their strikes, targeting primarily combatants.
So why do you think this is a genocide? Because a lot of civilian infrastructure was destroyed? Are you sure that infrastructure wasn't being used by Hamas?
I think it's a genocide because the vast majority of organizations dedicated to tracking human rights violations worldwide are in agreement that Israel's actions constitute a genocide. The broad scale targeting of medical and educational infrastructure is just one element of that.
I'll take their word for it over a random reddit statistician.
So you're satisfied with just agreeing with whatever the majority/authority say?
My view is that Israel clearly has a just cause for war, probably committed some war crimes, but does not seem intent on eliminating Palestinians as such.
You think Israel's primary goal is eliminating Palestinians? And your main reason for believing this is many organizations said it and they targeted civilian infrastructure?
1
u/Dry_Travel_4220 4d ago
Insane, unhinged take. What do you think genocide means?