That's exactly what happened in Gaza, as I stated previously. Ethnic cleansing transformed into genocide because Gazans refuse to leave.In that case I stand corrected. But at some point later in the war, their intentions changed to genocide. I don't think that change of intention has occurred in Israel yet,
Since the near complete annihilation of Gaza, both as a state and a nation, doesn't fit your definition of a genocide, let me ask you then what exactly would you call a genocide in Gaza? If you wanted to do a genocide in Gaza, what would you do? And remember, you cannot use any events that have already occurred such as mass graves, targeting civilian hospitals and schools, forced starvation, etc.
You can't be serious. Yes they do!Mass graves does not equate genocide.
I know what your issue is. You will only believe it is genocide if the West accepts it as genocide. If the West refuses to accept it, you will also refuse. For example, the West doesn't accept the genocide of native Americans.Mass graves were perpetuated by multiple nations, on both sides, during WW2, yet only one state conducted genocide, despite at least 2 other states also having conducted war crimes and killings of civilians on a massive scale. Mass graves can be attributed to multiple sides during the Yugoslav wars, yet none of the parties intended to conduct genocide. The US left mass graves all over Korea/Japan, yet those actions do not constitute genocide.
No. If they left, it would be ethnic cleansing. But since they did not leave, the 'I kill you' process began which is textbook genocide."Leave or I will kill you," is textbook ethnic cleansing.
Take a look at the links posted by other members on what is genocide. Israel met multiple requirements.