Words have meanings. You truly think the current targeting has absolutely no distinction from just chunking bombs into a population centers at random.

If you actually want to engage people on this topic, you are going to have to learn to moderate your language. Saying Israel is not using enough discretion when picking targets and the number of civilian casualties is too high, actually invites a nuanced discussion.

...In the same sense that not calling a spade a spade ends up channeling everyone else's energies away from dealing with a spade problem, and into needless quibbling on defintions to provide an aggressor someone might sympathize with some "intellectual cover"?

Is that what you mean by invites "nuanced" discussion?

Because what you're coaching to have happen is not even "nuanced". It's just intellectual judo. If it weren't you wouldn't be refusing to deal with it as is.

Sorry, you can't redefine every word and have useful discussions with people. If you think using the correct terms for things so people can have a better understanding of what you are talking about is "intellectual judo", I don't know what to say.

No, there are clear criteria for genocide as stated in other posts.

Things like "you americans can't reason objectively" aren't OK on HN; it's no more OK when Americans write slurs about Europeans. You're wading into one of the most contentious and complicated geopolitical conflicts in the world. People are going to disagree with you. If you can't deal with that, don't engage on this topic here.