DarthJon

That's the definition of a genocide. The evidence has to support the conclusion that Israel has demonstrated intent to destroy the Palestinian people, and the evidence clearly doesn't show that. Here are a few key data points:

1. Even if we take the estimated death toll at face value, every military expert who has looked at the numbers has concluded that the civilian-to-combatant ratio is among the lowest (and possibly THE lowest) in the history of urban warfare. This suggests that the IDF has actually done a very good job of minimizing civilian casualties.
2. Even if we take the estimated death toll at face value, it represents maybe 1-2% of the entire Palestinian population. If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the death toll to be much higher.
3. The pace of civilian death slowed dramatically over the course of the war in Gaza as the IDF moved into different phases of the war. If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the pace of civilian death to remain constant and not diminish over time.

You don't have a grasp of the history. You make it sound like the Palestinians were actively working towards peace and only became radicalized 30 years ago, which is simply untrue. The Palestinians have been radicalized since Arafat became Chairman of the PLO in the 1960's. The PLO carried out their first terror attack years before the 1967 war, before Israel even came to occupy Gaza and the WB. The 1948 war was literally a war of annihilation carried out by several Arab countries (and thankfully they lost).

Even Arafat's supporters blame him for walking away from the negotiating table at Camp David. Peace was in sight and he rejected it. Abbas was offered almost everything in 2008 and again they rejected it. Do you know why? Because they have never been interested in peaceful coexistence with Israel. Never. They have rejected every partition plan and every peace deal because nothing less than all of it is acceptable to them.

Have you not been following the news on this? There is an actual definition of genocide in international law. "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. "

South Africa will not be able to make their case, which is probably why they asked for an extension on the date to provide evidence. No rational person can conclude from the facts that Israel has demonstrated the intent to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part.

You do realize this conflict predates the settlements, don't you? By about 50 years. The settlements certainly don't help the situation, but they are nowhere near a significant root cause of the conflict.

I joined 11 days ago to engage in discussions about a topic that is of concern to me. I can see that I will have to lower my expectations.

Do you know how many civilians died in WWII protecting the world from the Nazis and Imperial Japan?

And no, Israel is not committing a genocide. Claiming "40,000 dead civilians" doesn't define a genocide. Besides, a large proportion of those "civilians" were actually Hamas fighters.

It's frightening how many people just soak up terrorist propaganda. What are you going to bring up next? The alleged hospital bombing? The fake famine? The so-called "Flour Massacre?"

I'm getting that sense...