I'll bite - disclaimer that I'm not the person you replied to. If you look at comparable situations throughout history - urban warfare - Gaza doesn't really st

I'll bite - disclaimer that I'm not the person you replied to. If you look at comparable situations throughout history - urban warfare - Gaza doesn't really stand out as an outlier. It is tragic that urban warfare is usually so deadly, but singling out Gaza as a uniquely evil instance just doesn't seem to have any basis in the statistics. The crime of Genocide is unique - it isn't enough to establish what physically happened, nor to establish intent, but all those and cause-effect must be proven. The bar was, intentionally, placed extremely high, in order to emphasize the extraordinarily evil nature of this crime. It seems to me that the purely circumstantial evidence does not meet this bar of intent, let alone being able to establish cause-effect. Lowering the bar in order to prosecute more acts would only serve to de-emphasize why the term genocide was coined to describe the most heinous of crimes. It is supposed to represent something almost unfathomable, something that could only be carried out with intent or else the acts would make no rational sense, not something that could happen out of negligence and lack of caution. I find it notable that many historical genocides were defined by acts that took place outside of the actual military engagements. Unfortunately, the trend seems to be try to use this word to describe all war acts people consider unjustified. If people need another way to describe such war acts, that is a separate question.