I'm not so sure - a standard definition is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
I guess you can call civilian casualties fighting terrorists and restricting food that but it detracts from the use of the term for real round them up and kill them all type genocides.
I note the title of this HN story is basically a lie. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. The article says what they have seen could be consistent with genocide, not "declares the war in Gaza as genocide." It specifically says they are not declaring it a genocide as they feel they don't have the legal expertise.
I guess you can call civilian casualties fighting terrorists and restricting food that but it detracts from the use of the term for real round them up and kill them all type genocides.
And then you'd wonder if things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden count as genocide. And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.
I note the title of this HN story is basically a lie. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. The article says what they have seen could be consistent with genocide, not "declares the war in Gaza as genocide." It specifically says they are not declaring it a genocide as they feel they don't have the legal expertise.