This is from a poster on page 28:
This is where I think the current definition of genocide might need clarifying. In its application there seems to be an implied provision that the 'intent to destroy ' is a realisable ambition. But it's not explicit, and it needs to be.
Otherwise most acts of mass terrorism would fall under the definition, heck even a single murder could constitute a genocide based on intention.
It being realisable means that their intention has some prospects of success. So whilst someone who has stated that want to kill Muslims one person at a time, who commits a murder, might show genocidal intent, it's not genocide.
So the acts of a nation are more likely to constitute genocide either because of the level of the acts, or the potential level of the acts.
Hamas is no real threat to Israel. They can never thankfully succeed at their aims of wiping out Israel, and their terrorist acts are committed against a regime whose power dwarfs theirs. Again, more homicidal intent, or hell-bent on homicide, however your want to put it, but it's much more debatable whether it's actual genocide.
The sheer power of Israel coupled with a much higher death rate, and a siege lasting more than a decade, together with comments made by the government about wanting to destroy gaza, reduce it to tents, give the citizens the choice of leaving, dying or subjugation etc, much more point to it fulfilling the definition of genocide as it's intended to be read (it with realisable intent, not just intent).