Interesting turn of phrase you used - it is in fact a leap, as you're making assumption you put forward as fact in your mind; how often do you do that?

Countless people are accusing him of genocide, including the ICC, and it certainly looks like a genocide by me; the problem with this discussion is no one defending the side accused of genocide will actually get into details of defining what could actually constitute genocide - so keeping it up in the air vague, which then allows them to not actually stand for it or against it - because there's nothing defined; most people have a wrong legal definition in their head for what constitutes genocide as well.

Personally yes, from what I have seen, the rhetoric from high up Israeli politicians and government officials, I would argue it's genocide.

The ICF has concluded officially as well that it is apartheid - and that those itnernational rules apply to Israel.

> Interesting turn of phrase you used - it is in fact a leap, as you're making assumption you put forward as fact in your mind; how often do you do that?

Well if you wrote clearly we wouldn't have this issue.

> Countless people are accusing him of genocide, including the ICC

The ICC explicitly have not. Perhaps they might in the future, but genocide was not one of the charges. If the icc prosecutor believes he has evidence of genocide occuring he has the authority to request a warrant for it (or request the existing warrant be amended)

As for others, well the icc is basically the only court with competent juridsiction (technically a domestic israel court would also, but it seems pretty unlikely at this point that the israeli gov would arrest their own PM for genocide). I dont find random people very meaningful compared to charges at court where evidence actually has to be presented.

> the problem with this discussion is no one defending the side accused of genocide will actually get into details of defining what could actually constitute genocide

The rome statue defines genocide which would be the definition used by the ICC. It is the same as how the genocide convention defines it which is essentially the official definition.

There is case law on how to specificly interpret the definition. Genocide is not a new concept at this point, and there exists people who have been tried for genocide in the past which has generated case law.

> most people have a wrong legal definition in their head for what constitutes genocide as well.

Yes, i agree that is an issue. However just because people have wrong beliefs does not mean the crime is undefined.

> The ICF has concluded officially as well that it is apartheid

I assume you mean ICJ here? They did not conclude that. They concluded that israel violated "Article 3 of CERD". Article 3 includes apartheid but it also includes other things. The ICJ did not specify which part of article 3 israel violated. (Obviously pretty bad either way)