Comment by ToucanLoucan

> With this interpretation, you could call a single murder a genocide, if done with the intent of destroying a people

I mean, if you killed someone who for whatever odd reason played a critical role in the maintenance of a culture, with the stated goal being the extinction of that culture, then yes that's an act of genocide. The fact that the event itself is a bit strange doesn't change what it is.

The systematized way that Canada's residential schools literally beat their native tongue out of the native children they were put in charge of was also an act of genocide. It isn't an error in the interpretation, it's what the word is.

> (in which case, isn’t even murder of an Israeli by Hamas or other organizations whose intent is to destroy a genocide?)

Yes, but they're not the ones aggressing. No one is saying Israel's neighbors are innocent, but Israel is currently, actively engaged in an ethnic cleansing. The fact that those they're cleansing wouldn't do the same back to them given the chance both doesn't make that okay and is irrelevant.

> Yes, it does. It is in fact this attempt to do less harm that prolongs the war and keeps Hamas alive. To actually destroy Hamas, you would have to kill a lot more civilians. So Israel often settles for destroying weapons caches, tunnels, and structures they operate from.

Well then they fucked up about 47,000 times by official numbers.