Well written article, but your accusation of Hamas committing war crimes seems problematic. If combatants are only obligated "to do all they can to minimize the death and destruction if they do need to operate in areas where it is likely civilians will be hurt," then the fact that Hamas uses indiscriminate weapons would seem to support the claim that they're not committing war crimes: there's nothing more they can do to minimize civilian casualties when using such weapons. The only way I see around this is to claim that the use of indiscriminate weapons at all constitutes a war crime, which seems to me a dangerously broad definition. And I have to ask, how do you define the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing? You agree that Israel's committing ethnic cleansing, and your own definition of genocide is acts "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" (emphasis mine). So what makes that different from what Israel's doing?
Using indiscriminate weapons in areas where civilians are known to be present in large numbers is, indeed, illegal. International law is itself problematic, as are most legal systems. But that's what it is. It's not what what you, I or anyone wants it to be, it is what it is. The use, for example, of white phosphorous, which Israel used in gaza in 2009, is illegal in civilian areas and is proscribed for specific uses in a field of battle--something rarely seen in any war these days. But it is not illegal altogether, only if used improperly. If, for example, Hamas was able, with some degree of certainty, to aim a rocket at Israel's ships off the coast, or at Israeli troops massed at the gaza border, the use of indiscriminate weapons would be permitted since it is not being used in civilian areas. Another example is a bomb. A suicide bomber, say like the one Hezbollah employed at the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, is not an indiscriminate weapon. It can be used in such a way as to target combatants and locales used for military purposes. In any case, Hamas makes no bones at all about the fact that it targets civilians with its rockets, so the point is moot. Whether a weapon is indiscriminate or not, willfully targeting civilians is a war crime. On the genocide question, what makes it different is that Israel is not doing what you quoted, plain and simple. The fact of murder, mass murder, is not the same as genocide. The United States killed a great many more Iraqis than Israel has Palestinians, that doesn't make the US actions aimed at wiping out Iraqis, which is the intent and point of the genocide statute. On the other hand, the object of the hutus in Rwanda was to wipe out the Tutsis. That's the difference. Again, it may not be how you would define these terms. But this is what the international legal system has established as its definition. Israel doesn't fit it, nor do we need it to--what it is doing is quite horrific enough.
Again, the law may not say what you or I might want it to say, but it is what it is. Progressives often believe that International Law is some trove of wisdom, when it was made up initially by military leaders, and later on by lawyers. Expect not perfection from those groups.
Fair enough. I can't say I'm very familiar with international law, but that seems relatively reasonable. As far as genocide, I think the intended implication of my question was unclear - I didn't mean to suggest that Israel is committing genocide, but rather that they aren't engaging in ethnic cleansing. If Israel isn't targeting Palestinians with the aim of wiping them out ("in whole or in part"), then what makes it ethnic cleansing?
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. In Gaza, it is not so much of either, you're correct. On the West Bank and in East Jerusalem where israel is squeezing Palestinians into smaller and smaller enclaves, confiscating land and diverting resources and settling the land with their own citizens, there is a strong case to be made that what they are trying to do is drive Palestinians out with an eye toward annexation in the future (or, as some in the Israeli government would have it, the not so distant future). Since, on the basis of ethnicity, it certainly can be argued that Israel is trying to drive out one group of people for the benefit of another, that is an argument for ethnic cleansing. In Gaza right now, it's simply murder, massive destruction, and collective punishment. Which, again, is more than bad enough, I daresay.