Which is completely based on trying to analyze the reactions of politicians to an attack that included mass killings of civilians, intense brutality and mass rape. surprise surprise these are filled with anger and do not read like a swedish minister reaction to migrant birds. These are not different than the USA post 9/11.
Even if you take these statements, and add everything that happened on the ground for the last two years, comparing it to the Armenian, Rawandian or Jewish genocides is a joke of epic proportions.
It's a very minor war even in Middle Eastern terms, compared to the recent Syrian or Yemen civil wars or the American involvement in Iraq
That is a straw man. The criterion is deliberate targeting of civilian populations. The US is known for having occasionally bombed a wedding party, but in Gaza, 80% of the victims were civilians. That’s a war crime and closer to WWII extermination campaigns than any modern military conflict involving western militaries. We are not talking about collateral damage from a drone strike, that’s systematic levelling of entire cities. You have to go back to things like Dresden and the Tokyo firebombings to find western equivalents.
Hospitals and journalists were deliberately bombed. That’s a war crime and the closest example of a western military doing it is Russia in Ukraine.
Emergency shelters and food distribution centres were deliberately targeted. That’s a war crime and again, there is no western equivalent.
Then there’s the pogroms on the West Bank.
When your argument is that a country’s behaviour is not as bad as ethnically cleansing in some African countries or WWII, your argument is really desperate.
That's incorrect, at best you may have been quoting an organization that had abducted babies for political advantage and you assume won't lie for a political advantage, even though it was caught lying before. However, I don't believe even they are claiming that, as they are intentionally not publishing militant death statistics to inflate the notion of civilian deaths
It's not a straw man, and you are incorrect on a number of factual points. For example, there are circumstances under which targeting hospitals is not a war crime. I think that "not as bad as WWII" is the opposite of desperate! WWII is a war that all decent people acknowledge that the allies absolutely had to win, and the human toll, whilst tragic, was necessary.
The definition used here is so broad, any killing of any member of a group, without any relation to number ("part") or tactics can qualify as a genocide.
