They still have much to lose; not everyone is against them globally as of yet; which also makes their position a lot better in international court against charges of genocide. And fascists also could lose support in their own country, because a lot of Israeli people are suspicious or hostile towards their own government and army. Not fucking up everything also costs way less bombs. There also possibly isn't enough reason to kill every single one, if political and other goals are achieved otherwise. Think about it; fascists like enemies. It distracts people from real issues. So why would you even want to kill everyone, then? Just keep the population barely alive for annual bloodbath or whatever people want. This argumentation of yours is really weak, as is calling ad hominem my hint to get your head out of your ass. It is a really long stretch.
----------------------------
WHAT IS GENOCIDE?
The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as crimes committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."Three cases so far have met international courts' threshold: the Cambodian Khmer Rouge's slaughter of minority Cham people and Vietnamese in the 1970s, who were among an estimated 1.7 million dead; the 1994 mass killing of Tutsis in Rwanda that left 800,000 dead; and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of some 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Bosnia.
Criminal acts comprising genocide include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, creating conditions calculated to destroy them, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children to other groups.
Loading…
www.reuters.com
------------------
Why genocide is hard to prove
With the rise of the term “genocide,” scholars began to use it for historic mass atrocities like the Gold Rush-era mass murders of Native Californians by Anglo settlers, China’s sterilisation of its Uyghur minority in 2020, and the Ottoman Empire’s slaughter of as many as 1.2 million Armenian Christians in 1915 and 1916.Still, far fewer mass barbarities have been designated genocide under international law. While the law is clear about what constitutes a genocide, its critics argue that the legal standard for genocide is so specific that it is almost never applicable to mass killings or brutal acts perpetrated against a group.
According to the UN, “The intent is most difficult to determine....Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.”
How genocide is defined—and why it’s so difficult to prove
The gravest of international crimes was outlawed in the 1940s after the atrocities of the Holocaust. But it took decades to convict anyone of genocide—and the...
If it looks like a genocide, smells like a genocide and tastes like a genocide, it probably is genocide.
