You want proof of genocidal intent re: Gaza? Here it is : law4palestine(.)org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Database-of-Israeli-Incitement-to-Genocide-DECISION-MAKERS.pdf
I was going to ignore this, but the further I read the worse it got, so here goes. Apologies in advance, but this is going to be extremely long.
The doc contains quotes from four men, PM Netanyahu, President Herzog, former MOD Gallant, and Benny Gantz, formerly a minister in Netanyahu's war cabinet. They are categorized as evidence of one or more of the following alleged actions: civilian harm, collective punishment, genocidal intent, forced displacement, dehumanization, and destruction.
# 1. Yep. That's pretty blatantly threatening civilian harm. Yoav Gallant sucks.
# 2. This is definitely a war crime. I don't know that I would strictly categorize this as either civilian harm or collective punishment, though. Starting with the latter, collective punishment is, you know, punishment. Mass reprisal killings, mass arrests, punishment of family members or associates. There is no crime specified here that Gaza is being punished for. For the former, this is a little more complicated. Civilian deaths are not, in fact, prohibited in war. There is such a thing as legally acceptable collateral damage. What exactly discerns legal military actions from war crimes is somewhat complex, but the important consideration here is proportionality. The proportionality of a military action is determined by the expected harm to civilian life, property, and infrastructure as compared to the expected military advantage gained. I think this should go without saying, but flattening buildings to kill a single militant constitutes criminally disproportionate use of military force.
# 3. Oh, wow. No. Not any of those. As per the previous section, harm to civilians proportionate to military advantage gained is legal in war. As a statement without additional context, that quote is completely meaningless. It isn't proof of criminal harm to civilians, it has fuck-all to do with collective punishment, and I have no idea where the hell genocide comes into this.
# 4. No, not really. The closest this comes to any of these categories is "Gaza is the city of evil..." as dehumanization and "...act everywhere and with full power." as potentially disproportionate use of force. In isolation, I think this quote actually credits Israel more than it discredits it. To my knowledge, warning civilians of imminent military action doesn't really have any kind of legal consideration, but it could potentially be an argument that 'expected harm' to civilians was lower and thus more proportionate. I doubt that would hold much sway in a court. Beyond that, Netanyahu specifically names a Hamas presence as the target criteria. Do I necessarily believe him? No. Does this quote support any kind of criminal action? Also no. Once again, I have no idea where collective punishment comes into this.
# 5. Denazification is genocide now?!?!
# 6. I notice a hint of editorializing here. The quote itself is so out of context as to be meaningless.
# 7. This quote is too vague to tease much of anything out of it. Who are the "they" Gallant is referring to? Is it Hamas? Is it the people of Gaza? I looked at the source to try and get some additional context, but I don't understand Hebrew and Firefox's Hebrew-to-English translation isn't great.
# 8. Humanitarian aid is collective punishment now?
# 9. I have no idea what this has to do with either genocide or excessive civilian harm.
# 10. OK, am I going crazy or I'd this list actually just ass? This has fuck-all to do with forced displacement. It's a political statement concerning Netanyahu's distrust of the Palestinian Authority, the governing body of the West Bank and the former governing body of Gaza before Hamas. I went into the source, where I found Netanyahu's reasons for that position. He cites "Abo Mazen" (Firefox's mangled translation of Abu Mazen, another name for the PA leader Mahmoud Abbas) refusing to condemn the 7 Oct attacks, expressions of support for the attacks by members of Abbas' government, and the PA's deposition in Gaza by Hamas. In a "heartbreaking, the worst person you know" moment, I regrettably have to agree with his reasoning here. I don't think it should be his decision to deny the PA control over Gaza in the first place, but he does make some good points here.
Once again, this has fuck-all do do with forced displacement.
# 11. Yep. That's textbook dehumanization. Issac Herzog also sucks. However, while dehumanization is one of the steps of genocide, it is not genocide in and of itself, nor does his full statement support the claim of genocidal intent. Herzog says nothing about what actions Israel will or will not do in Gaza. He doesn't say, "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza, therefore we will kill them all as punishment." He doesn't say, "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza, so any action we take is justified," which could be evidence of disproportionate harm to civilians.
# 12. Yep, that's a war crime. "Restraints" includes stuff like proportionality and distinction, which I haven't mentioned yet, mostly because it's so basic so as to almost go without saying. Distinction is just the legal term that means differentiating combatants and protected persons, which includes civilians and medical personnel. You can't order your soldiers to ignore the laws of war. That's a fucking war crime. I dispute that this quote constitutes evidence of collective punishment, however.
Yoav Gallant still sucks.
# 13. This actually comes from the same source as # 11. There are a lot of these that are just different parts of one larger statement, actually. If I were a cynical person, I might believe that this was done to make the list look longer. Back to the quote, just like # 11, it's dehumanizing language, as well as closer to expressing a desire for collective punishment than the previous excerpt. 1,000 % shitty, but not evidence of any acts of collective punishment taking place.
# 14. Textbook dehumanization. I have no idea what prophecy he is referring to.
# 15. So he's saying ... that Israel is destroying Hamas ... the terrorist organization that attacked Israel, murdered over 800 civilians, and started the ongoing war? This is quite literally the opposite of collective punishment. Also, "destruction" means nothing in international law.
# 16. Well that's a whole lot of editorializing. Isn't the whole point of this list that these statements by Israeli officials constitute proof of genocidal intent?
# 17. Oh, wow! That is the most literal example of dehumanization I've seen in a long time. Yoav Gallant still sucks.
As for the blockade, that's at least two war crimes. Blockades are legal in war. However certain goods like food and medical supplies are excepted from legal military blockades. To withhold those constitutes a war crime. The second is starvation. Yes, you read that correctly, the act of starving a population is a war crime in and of itself, regardless of considerations of genocide or genocidal intent.
# 18. I don't accept biblical or metaphorical language as proof of genocidal intent. Dehumanization? Sure. Incitement to violence? I'll hear you out. Genocide? Not even close.
# 19. I can't access the original source, so I have no idea what the context is. What does the "everything" in "We will eliminate everything" refer to? The people of Gaza? Hamas? Gazan infrastructure? Anything of military ability?
# 20. Not necessarily even illegal. The laws of war make no place unconditionally off limits to attack, nor is there a requirement to designate zones of sanctuary. Even hospitals can void their protection if they can be demonstrated as having been put to military use beyond the provision of medical care and sustenance. If a valid military target has been identified and is attacked in such a way as to avoid disproportionate harm to protected persons, that does not constitute a war crime, no matter where it happens.
# 21. More objectively dehumanizing language. Bibi does, in fact, suck, and I eagerly anticipate his obituary. Still not genocidal intent.
# 22. More metaphorical language too vague to constitute much of anything.
None of that, based on my understanding of international law and my ability to read, constitutes remotely concrete evidence of incitement to genocide.
War crimes? Absolutely. There's, like, a horrifying number of war crimes there. Everyone and their mother knows Israel has committed war crimes already. But this supposed "proof" of genocidal intent is, at best, extremely dubious.
Genocide is somewhat unique among war crimes and crimes against humanity in that it requires proof of intent.
Bomb a hospital? That's a war crime*. Kill 5,000 civilians to destroy a single, moderately sized factory? That's a war crime. Impose starvation on a population? That's both a war crime and a crime against humanity. Cluster bombs? War crime. Torturing POWs? War crime. White phosphorus?
Not actually a war crime, necessarily. That's a myth. It is legal, but there are restrictions on its usage. You can't drop white phosphorus bombs near civilian areas, for example.
Intent matters to a certain extent; whether or not you can commit a war crime through incompetence is to my knowledge a legal grey area. But for many war crimes, the act is enough.
Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of a modern, developed nation with one of the most powerful and technologically advanced militaries in the world, operating mere tens of kilometers from their home soil, with absolute, unopposed air supremacy, completely unchallenged armored combat units, and supported by the unquestionably effective intelligence capabilities of Mossad.
Israel, with the co-operation of Egypt, has absolute control over movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza. They decide, alone and unchallenged, what aid has made it in, and what aid - by far the greater quantity - has been refused entry.
Most importantly, they have, since January 2025, the unconditional backing of THE SOLE global military hegemon, the United States.
The maximum destructive power the State of Israel could theoretically bring to bear on Gaza is unfathomable. If Netanyahu were really determined to genocide the people of Gaza, there would not be any of them left by now.