Coyote said:
Ok, let's take #1 - killing members of the group.
Thus far, those actions have been undertaken primarily in defense and in reaction to rocket fire in Israel, and terrorist actions conducted on civilians in Israel and in the Occupied Territory settlements. They aren't being killed solely because they are members of a particular group or religion.
#2 causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
That one has two different aspects. One is, again, self defense and security and if Hamas launched rockets into civilian areas I don't think you can expect Israel to standby wagging a finger and shaking a head.
The other is the treatment of Palestinians, particularly juveniles, in the justice system (particularly in comparison with Israeli citizens in the same territory). I think that is unjust and wrong - but is it "genocide" in and of itself? I don't think so...
The "self defence" plea used by the Zionists rests on proportionality of the response. If a rocket is fired at you, there are three possible responses;
Do nothing - unlikey response by the Zionists although they could take the matter to the ICC and/or UN to obtain a ruling that would sanction the Resistance (i.e. obtain a judgement/resolution allowing extreme military action if the attacks don't cease).
Retaliate - Here's where proportionality comes in; they shoot at you, you can legally shoot back at those firing at you with relative impunity. If you have weapons (i.e. guided missiles) that can kill or destroy the launch sites, this is using reasonable force to retaliate. However, carpet bombing an entire suburb (whether or not you warn the inhabitants in advance) most reasonable, rational people would consider that a disproportionate response which cannot be "self defence" Neither is destroying civilian infrastructure.
Shoot down the rocket before it hits anything important.- Iron Dome, most people would say that was sufficient for a "self defence" plea.
What SHOULD Israel do when militants across the border are shooting rockets into their civilian populations and the government there does nothing to curb it? How long should the government tolerate it before engaging in strong retaliation to end it once and for all?
There were a number of aspects to "Protective Edge" (I think that was the one using white phospherous) that were wrong - disproportionate, civilians were trapped and unable to escape, and aid was prevented from entering. But that doesn't qualify as genocide.
Israel could have - if it wanted - reduced Gaza to rubble. It could shut off all supplies, water and power. Israel also endures a substantial amount of provocation before acting on it. And, despite very real inequalities, Israel does have a substantial Arab (Palestinian) citizen population with the same rights as the Jewish population. How does "genocide" fit with that? I think in this instance - you have asymmetric warfare - not genocide and much of what you see is the result of decades of conflict and no resolution in sight.
Killing those you identify as "terrorists" is legitimate self defence, wantonly killing civillians in large numbers in order to kill those you identify as "terrorists" is an act of genocide as defined.
What do you do when the terrorists are amongst civilian populations? If a terrorist bombed a school bus of children...do you do nothing? Is going after him the same as "wantonly" killing civilians in large numbers? I'll give Israel credit - it does make efforts to target an individual terrorist as specifically and narrowly as possible with smart bomb technology. It could, instead, level the block. I don't see this as genocide.
Serious bodily or mental harm includes waging pychological warfare by having your jets routinely overfly the Gaza strip creating a sonic boom, or just by sending drones overhead on a daily basis to induce paranoia. Restricting movement, herding people into cages on a daily basis, restricting certain types of foodstuffs, routinely torturing prisoners, all cause bodily and mental harm; all acts of genocide as defined.
Possibly...except you still need "intent" - some things are collective punishment. What food stuff is restricted? Torturing prisoners is wrong but not genocide.
"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" Seen Gaza recently. the Zionist Paradise may indeed contain a "Muslim Israeli" population, with ostensibly "equal rights" although there are both laws and social stigmas attached to that status. This does not in any way diminish the fact that a genocide of Palestinians is under way.
Kind of like being black in America once was? Social stigma is not genocide.
""Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" I've never heard of this happening." In 1991 the fertility rate in Gaza was 8.3 children per woman, in 2014 this had halved to 4.4 according to Index Mundi
The reasons why Gaza’s population is so young
Maybe the claim is not as weak as you think.
Nothing in that article indicates measures imposed intended to prevent births. Intent is lacking.
Compare the Palestinians with the Azidi's and Rohinga:
The Azidi's have long been persecuted - and are now actively hunted down. Their men and boys are killed, their women and girls raped and enslaved. Their culture is being eradicated and their small population sent into mass graves.
The Rohinga are herded into concentration camps and can not leave except if they choose to leave the country. They have no citizenship. They are not allowed to work. Their entire sustenance is that provided by foreign aid groups. They are not allowed to be educated (the passing on of culture). They are not allowed to marry or have children without governement permission.
I see a lot of wrongs committed against the Palestinians but not genocide.
): 
