> Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed"

Source? Perhaps older report, before the country dropped any pretense of respecting international norms on human rights. Today Amnesty sees a clear case of genocide underway against indigenous palestinians in Gaza. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...

The citation is from page 101 of the report you linked. Have you read it?

Let me get the full paragraph:

> 5.5.2 STATE INTENT The jurisprudence on genocidal intent on the part of a state is more limited. The ICJ has accepted that, in the absence of direct proof, specific intent may be established indirectly by inference for purposes of state responsibility, and has adopted much of the reasoning of the international tribunals.380 However, its rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. The organization considers that the Genocide Convention must be interpreted in a manner that ensures that genocide remains prohibited in both peacetime and in war and that ICJ jurisprudence should not be read to effectively preclude a finding of genocide during war.

Regarding state intent, it appears this means that Amnesty is just remarking that a state can't launder genocide intent by parallel constructing additional motives or goals that are legitimate sounding.

So that does not support your conclusion that "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed". Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document. Those are not Amnesty words, neither the text actually in the report supports it.

> Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document.

I wrote the direct quote after the colon and ">" symbol. The part in quotes in my rephrasing. Of course AI wouldn't write such thing directly, they need to hide it deep into the report behind convoluted language.

This paragraph consists of

1. Explaination how genocide definition is interpreted by international courts, specifically ICJ.

2. Claim that existing interpretation preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict (for example, war in Gaza). I'm not sure that it's true, because for example, Srebrenica massacre happened during armed conflict and was found an act of genocide, but let's take their claim on face value.

3. Conclusion that we need change the interpretation of definition of genocide to be able to find during war conflict (specifically, war in Gaza)

Part 2 is what I summarized as "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions", and part 3 is what I summarized as "thus definitions should be changed". Technically they want to change interpretation and not definition, so the better summary would be "Israel cannot be found guilty of genocide according to existing interpretation of genocide, so the interpretation should change". Or do you disagree with this one too?