It’s about plausible deniability, and it seems to be working for them. They can’t overtly destroy the whole nation because they’d be shunned from global trade.

They have proven themselves quite resilient even when opposed by the rest of the world and their neighbors. I suspect what is keeping them from destroying the entire nation is ethical restraint, and the memory of what led to the creation of Israel in the first place, the genocide they themselves experienced, the sort these laws were created to prevent.

But arguing the “legal” definition is a sad excuse for a distraction anyway. What matters is that the death and starvation of many thousands of children continues, and Israel shows no signs of stopping.

Okay, if we're talking common usage of the term and not legal definition, genocide is destroying an ethnic group. The ethnic group in question here is Arab, and Israel is surrounded by Arab nations, 21% of Israel's population is Arab. They are in no risk of destruction, nor are they making any meaningful attempt to eradicate this group within or without their own borders. No one is putting Arabs on trains to extermination camps. The only way to make genocide even arguable is because national groups are included in the legal definition.

By all means, take issue with death and starvation. I agree that it is terrible. What I take issue with is holding Israel to a different standard than other nations and blaming them for defending themselves by inappropriately calling it a genocide.