If you read the charter, you can see that if any of these things apply, it can be labelled a genocide. And you pick one and say “you need to provide proof”, glossing over the glaring fact that even without, it already counts as a genocide.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group […]
any of these as long as there’s intent to destroy. Without intent to destroy, it’s not a genocide. Quite simple, really, if you read the charter.
None of the links prove or even hint at intent to destroy the Palestinian population. They hint at fears that Israel might occupy Gaza partiallly or fully and even displace Palestinian civilians permanently. While absolutely terrible, that isn’t genocide according to the Geneva Conventions you quoted above.
Again, where’s your proof for intent to destroy the Palestinian people?
If you read the charter, you can see that if any of these things apply, it can be labelled a genocide. And you pick one and say “you need to provide proof”, glossing over the glaring fact that even without, it already counts as a genocide.
But sure, if you insist;
CBC
NPR
USA Today
People’s World
UN
Foreign Policy
ABC News
any of these as long as there’s intent to destroy. Without intent to destroy, it’s not a genocide. Quite simple, really, if you read the charter.
None of the links prove or even hint at intent to destroy the Palestinian population. They hint at fears that Israel might occupy Gaza partiallly or fully and even displace Palestinian civilians permanently. While absolutely terrible, that isn’t genocide according to the Geneva Conventions you quoted above.
Again, where’s your proof for intent to destroy the Palestinian people?
It seems you haven’t read any of the linked articles, so there is no need to talk about this any further until you do.