There is nothing in your post that i disagree with, well apart from the term genocide. the word genocide is tricky noting it is, on this website, and around the world, a subjective term with people having a different view as to its meaning. What is happening in Gaza fits the literal interpretation of the word, but there is a strong argument, from the Pro-Israeli voice, that if they wanted to commit genocide they would have wiped out everyone in Gaza.
Ultimately the population of gaza was 2.1? million. estimates suggest less then 100,000 have been killed (when Israel has the capability to kill all of them). I tend to agree that we should not use the term genocide noting its a spectrum and a highly divisive word.
agreed, genocide should be used the same way "premeditated" is used in terms of murder. it's an intent based term, with further context of results.
if you killed a noteworthy %, but didnt intend to, you're not guilty of genocide.
if you didn't kill a noteworthy %, but did intend to, you're not guilty of genocide.
if you killed a noteworthy %, and did intend to, you're guilty of genocide.
israel may have genocidal desires, but doesnt appear to have genocidal intent, and doesnt produce genocidal results in terms of death or even dismemberment/injury. its also best to keep this contentious term in the realm of death and dismemberment, because things like "cultural genocide" are better left as tertiary context to differentiate rather than the core evidence of guilt. like if i sought to eliminate all Irish imagery and customs from Ireland, but didnt kill a single person, am i guilty of genocide? i tend to say no, because the word doesnt typically mean that in common nomenclature.