Except the Israeli/Palestinian conflict started way before the current Gaza event. For years Israel has forced the mass displacement of Palestinian (ask a Lebanese), blockaded Gaza, destroyed many of the civilian infrastructure, continue its colonization of the west bank (and further displacing population without any regard for international laws). The fact that they did not decide to straight up murder the whole population in one go doesn't make this less of a genocide. They have just been committed to it for years.

I haven't followed the conflict closely and I'm not in any way trying to say Israel is blameless.

However your claims here seem very one-sided. For example I've read about how Israel has been trying to provide aid to Gaza but most of the resources have been controlled by Hamas who have been constructing elaborate tunnel systems, militias and weapons rather than improving the lives of civilians.

From my understanding this has culminated into the attack that started the war, and I can understand that Israel can't just sit on their hands while Hamas prepares for another attack.

The civilians of Gaza deserve to be able to live their lives in peace, but I don't see how that can happen if Hamas isn't dealt with.

The Hamas only exists since the first intifada in 1987. The Nakba, which displaced many Palestinian goes way back to 1948.

Let us be clear about the so-called Nakba. First, the Palestinians rejected the offer of a state from the UN and started a civil war and then a full-blown war after Israel declared its statehood. Secondly, there was no official Israeli state policy to drive Palestinians out of their homes in the 1948 war. The Palestinians who fled their homes did so for 3 main reasons: driven out by local Israeli commanders acting independently of government policy; told to leave by their own leaders who wanted to get non-combatants out of the war zones; and, some fled because they believed the exaggerated propaganda of their own leaders about Jewish terrorist group atrocities. So they weren’t all driven out, some left of their own accord. We don’t know how many are in each group because the Palestinians didn’t keep proper records. Also, remember that a similar number of Jewish people left or fled Arab countries for Israel at the same time. They just moved to Israel and got on with their lives instead of moaning about it for decades like the Palestinians.

It's likely a lot more as nobody's been counting for almost a year. Their genocide has been a slow burn since 48.

I find that hard to believe, but I don't really know anything so I can't dispute you.

The only numbers Israel used were from Hamas government health ministry, which ceased to operate about a year ago.

> if Israel wanted to commit genocide

thank you, israel

The requirement for all members of the target group to die in order for it to be called genocide is fallacious and not historically acccurate.

Was it genocide of the Native Americans, since 'they survived'? Was it genocide in Australia when white europeans took the land from the prior caretakers?

The answer: yes of course it was. Genocide doesn't mean total eradication - it means, attempted total eradication. In Gaza today, the lifestyles of the Palestinian peoples have been completely eradicated, and it will be years before they recover.

So what I'm saying is that if Israel had attempted total eradication they would kill more than 2.5% of them.

I also think that if Hamas had the means they would have been happy to totally eradicate Israel, civilians and all, so I can't say I have much sympathy for them. The civilian deaths are tragic but given these numbers I think it's pretty clear that they are collateral damage from fighting Hamas, not a target in themselves.