Genocide is a claim of intent, not ability. One can commit a shitty, ineffective genocide. One can kill a lot of civilians as collateral damage without it being a genocide.
Israel claims destroying Palestine is not their intent. Hamas says destroying Israel is their intent. Only one of these sides is explicitly genocidal by the UN definition.
Describing what Israel is doing as "high collateral damage" is like describing the US dropping its atomic bombs on Japan as "a tough negotiation tactic".
Israel goes to great lengths to ensure they attack legal military targets.
So are you suggesting they've got bad aim or something? Or is it a "happy accident"?
I think they are lying, and intent not being explicitly declared is weak ground to stand on when you consider what is being done.
So now it sounds to me like Israel is committing what a layperson would consider genocide, but it isn't "technically genocide" because they are being dishonest about their intent.
I'm suggesting they don't care much about collateral damage provided they have legal military targets. They know their enemy uses human shields and they're not going to let that be an effective tactic.
I think they are lying, and intent not being explicitly declared is weak ground to stand on when you consider what is being done. So now it sounds to me like Israel is committing what a layperson would consider genocide, but it isn’t “technically genocide” because they are being dishonest about their intent.
That's a far more compelling argument, but I haven't seen any proof of this. If it is a genocide it isn't a very effective one but I suppose that could be because they are manufacturing plausible deniability. They certainly have the means to level Gaza in a day were they so inclined but that would validate such accusations.
Given Israel's history, however, I find that very unlikely.