> I recommend the Amnesty International report The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"

> I recommend the Amnesty International report The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about: > 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 effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent. The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.