> Israel has had the means of destroying all of Gaza and bulldozing the debris into the sea for decades.

This is a really weak argument. Just because you have the means of a greater damage, that doesn’t absolve you of the damage you did cause. If I punch you in the face, I won’t be found not-guilty just because there was a fire extinguisher near by and in theory I could have caused a much greater harm.

This argument is doubly bad because Israel has destroyed all of Gaza. Almost everybody who lives there has been displaced. Most of everyone’s house is damaged or destroyed, almost everybody know somebody that has died, or is seriously wounded. The entire health care system has collapsed, the entire public order has collapsed, and people are constantly hungry. This is a textbook example of the destruction of a place.

> Even in this campaign they've been objectively trying to reduce civilian casualties despite it's detrimental effect on their military objective.

They have not. There are evidence of a pattern of conduct of civilians being targeted and killed on a regular basis by the IDF. This includes x-rays of photos of children’s skulls that have been shot in the head by an Israeli sniper, the share number of civilians killed and the statistical unlikelyhood that all these civilians were killed merely by accident, the previously mentioned destruction of the healthcare system and public order, etc. All of this combined is more than enough evidence that Israel is intending to bring about the destruction of Gaza in order to make civilian life impossible.

Using the word Genocide in the context is very appropriate and is being done by most experts on the matter, human rights organizations, international organizations, governments, etc.

[flagged]