Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide?
> the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives.
Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
> Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for?
There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide). MSF is not making a legal argument though, they are making a practical one. The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. From the MSF perspective, intent is irrelevant, it is only the practical situation on the ground that matters. Intent only matters in that it informs how we should go about stopping Israel from engaging in these actions, not whether those actions need to be stopped.
> Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
I don't doubt that it is something that has been considered and if that was something that any Israel's allies could do, they would.
However, saving 65 lives doesn't justify genocide, nor does it make what Israel is doing not genocide.
To be clear, the leaders of Hamas are also genocidal, just much less effective at it. The destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal but genocide is not an acceptable means to that end.
> What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
This isn't a case where you can say "oh, they didn't mean to, it's all good." It doesn't matter where you place Israel on the spectrum from incompetent, to reckless, to genocidal (and different parts of the government and military will clearly fall in different parts of that spectrum.) The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about:
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
> The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.
Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide?
> the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives.
Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider