This should be at the top.

Intent is a necessary prerequisite for a charge of genocide. You can't accidentally commit genocide. Flattening a civilian neighborhood with bombs and killing thousands of people is still a war crime but it doesn't rise to the level of genocide unless there is clear statements of intent by people in charge.

In the case of Israel, we have hundreds of statements made by everyone from the president of the country on down that one of the goals of the operation is to remove the Palestinians from Gaza and displace or destroy them. These statements aren't veiled or euphemistic in any way, they are literal, explicit statements that clearly define how Israel sees what its doing.

Sure.

On October 13th, Herzog gave a press conference in which he said: "It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.”

So it's pretty clear that Herzog considers the people in Gaza and Hamas to be one and the same. Herzog has repeated in public that the goal of the operation is to destroy Hamas. Given that he seems to consider any civilians in Gaza to be Hamas or at least Hamas sympathizers, that's a pretty clear cut statement that the goal is the destruction or removal of the Palestinians in Gaza.

That, coupled with other statements made by other government officials and the actions of the IDF in general support the charge of genocide.

Just as an aside, there doesn't need to be an explicit, unambiguous call for genocide by the president for there to be statements of support. I've documented those extensively.

The key part you're missing is intent.

Intent is the cornerstone of a charge of genocide because it differentiates a particular act/campaign as being distinctly different than just gross negligence and war crimes.

In the case of the First Chechen War, there was no clear intent on the part of the Russian government to specifically exterminate all Chechens. I think it's pretty clear that they didn't much care who they killed but indifference to casualties isn't genocide.

You need specific, clear cut actions and statements by people in charge of intent to destroy or displace a specific group of people. In the case of Israel, we have loads of statements from a wide range of public figures in the Israeli government, military, and society in general where they explicitly say the goal of the operation is to remove/wipe out the Palestinians.

Nowhere does it say he's advocating for attacking innocent gazans or genociding them.

His entire statement was:

“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember, and we are fighting. Our brave troops and combatants who are now in Gaza or around Gaza, and in all other regions in Israel, are joining this chain of Jewish heroes, a chain that has started 3,000 years ago from Joshua ben Nun, until the heroes of 1948, the Six-Day War, the ’73 October War and all other wars in this country."

Amalek is a nation written about in the Torah described as the sworn enemies of Israel. Deuteronomy talks about "blotting out the memory of Amalek" and "exterminating the seed of Amalek." The implication being quite clear that Amalek as a whole should be wiped out. Netanyahu's statement compared Palestine to Amalek.

Gaza is where Hamas is hiding out. They've stated they will continue killing Jews until they're all dead. That's genocide, the thing that you're saying is super awful.

Wanting to do something and actually doing it are two different things. Also, the response to someone attempting genocide isn't then to do a genocide back to them.

a siege is not a genocide.

It is if there is statements of intent made by the relevant authorities, of which I've documented here.

They did vote in the terrorists who committed the attack, so his statement isn't too off base.

In 2006 and there hasn't been an election since. Most of the people dying from Israeli attacks weren't even alive or able to vote during the 2006 election.

I would also point out that if you're endorsing this logic, it's the exact same logic used by Osama bin Laden to justify the 9/11 attacks and I feel pretty confident in assuming you're not going to say his statement wasn't too off base.

That doesn't suggest genocide.

It's a concept called "collective punishment" - attacking civilians for the crimes of a government. Normally, that's just a war crime. In light of Israel's leadership's statements of intent, that makes it a tick on the board in favor of genocide.

He got suspended for it, so clearly the government doesn't support that statement.

Then why did not the other ministers who made the same or similar statements not also get suspended?

Also, dropping a nuclear bomb is STILL not what genocide means. The US dropped two on Japan and certainly didn't try to genocide them.

When that act comes in concert with statements of intent, it does.

What's lacking in the case of the US were statements of intent or desire on the part of US leadership to destroy/wipe out the Japanese people as a whole. Dropping nuclear bombs was unarguably a war crime but it doesn't rise to the level of attempted genocide because there was no indication of intent.

The key part you're missing is that intent.

You should open with your strongest points, and if these are your strongest points there's really no need to waste time with the rest.

Convenient that you would want to yadda-yadda over the parts where Israeli politicians are explicitly calling for "another Nakba." I tend to think you want to skip the rest because they are very clear-cut examples of genocidal intent and can't really be handwaved away by feigned ignorance.

Netanyahu invokes the story of Amalek in reference to Gaza.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called for a "complete siege" of Gaza and that they were fighting "human animals."

Israeli army spokesperson says they're "focused on maximum damage."

Israeli president Isaac Herzog states that the "entire nation [of Palestine] is responsible.

A minister was temporarily suspended for advocating for dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza.

That sentiment would be repeated by a Knesset member from the Likud party calling for the total destruction of Gaza. That member was not suspended. This was actually kind of hard to research because there's like four people in the Knesset that said it and trying to figure out which one was which is actually kind of tricky.

Galit Atbaryan, another minister in the Likud party, advocated for "erasing all of Gaza from the face of the earth" and forcing the "Gazan monsters" to flee or die.

Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir has stated that “My right, the right of my wife and my children, to move around Judea and Samaria is more important than freedom of movement for the Arabs." A situation that would mean the de facto removal of the Arabs from these areas.

Israeli Minister of Agriculture Avi Dichter called for the war in Gaza to be "Gaza's Nakba." That sentiment was echoed by Knesset member from the Likud party Ariel Kallner who said that there was "one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of [1948.] Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join." Nakba ("catastrophe") is the term used by the Palestinians to reference the act of ethnic cleansing that Israel embarked on in 1948 that resulted in the displacement of over 750,000 Palestinians and the seizure of close to 80% of of formerly Mandatory Palestine by the nascent state of Israel.

Several public Israel political figures have called for the "flattening" or otherwise total destruction of Gaza.

Major General Ghassan Alian stated on behalf of the IDF that "There will be no electricity and no water (in Gaza), there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell."

Another IDF Major General stated "Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist." Adding "Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieving the goal." I couldn't find any indication that these statements were repudiated by the state of Israel or the IDF.

The mayor of the Israeli town of Metula stated that the Gaza Strip should be "flattened completely, just like Auschwitz today."

A bloc of Israeli Knesset members and government ministers are pushing for a resettlement of Gaza by Israelis, effectively stealing the land from Palestinians displaced by the fighting. The conference was attended by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Finance Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, both Likud party members. This comes along with plans in place from an Israeli real estate company to sell land in the Gaza Strip for Israeli settlers to purchase.

There are documents that have been leaked to the public regarding Israeli policymakers discussions about displacing Palestinians into the Sinai desert in Egypt as a goal. The document was produced by the Intelligence Ministry, headed by Gila Gamliel who is a member of the Likud party.

It's worth noting that Likud is the dominant political party in Israel and is the party that the majority of the government, including Netanyahu, belong to.

This is a clear pattern of intent by the dominant forces within the Israeli government to target Palestinians for elimination or removal.

So the two options here are either that you're too lazy to look at what I said or you did look at what I said and you realized there was no real way to dissemble and get around explicit calls for genocide so the next best option is to just interpret a few of them as obliquely as possible and pretend you have no faith in the rest.

You clearly have the time and inclination to participate in that you keep repeating the same thing over and over again so your time doesn't seem to be that valuable.

So at this point you have two choices - either address the rest of the statements or keep up this pretense. If you want to address the statements made by Israeli leadership supporting genocide in Palestine, I'm here for it. If you want to keep playing games, I'm genuinely bored by it and have a good rest of the day.

Basically every one of your attempted references functions the same way. You need to use multiple layers of implication and take them in the worst way possible to come to the conclusion they're saying they want to genocide Palestinians.

The declaration doesn't need to be explicit. The Nazis made heavy use of analogy and syllogism in their rhetoric and it was still quite clear who and what they were talking about. If all I had was Netanyahu's quote, you'd have a point.

But since I have much, much more his statement is a cherry on top.

You're not going through the rest of the statements because they demonstrate in plain language what I'm talking about and you're hiding behind the "well you lead with the best and if that was your best then the rest is worse!" because you want an excuse not to dive into the stuff that you can't handwave away.

I don't know who you think you're fooling here or why you're bothering to do it.