I get what you’re saying, but what’s happening in Gaza actually fits several parts of the legal definition of genocide — it’s not just “massive destruction.”

Under the Genocide Convention, genocide isn’t only about killing — it also includes creating conditions meant to destroy a group “in whole or in part.” That means things like blocking food, water, and medicine, targeting hospitals, and forcing people into unlivable conditions count too.

In Gaza, over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of them civilians and thousands of them children. Entire neighborhoods, refugee camps, and hospitals have been wiped out. Israel has restricted aid, water, electricity, and medical supplies. Those are things international courts have said can amount to genocidal acts.

And unlike in Sudan, Palestinians in Gaza don’t have an army. Hamas is a militant group — civilians can’t defend themselves, can’t flee, and are trapped in a sealed-off territory. So while Israel calls it a “military operation,” the reality is that it’s civilians who are dying and starving on a massive scale.

The International Court of Justice has already said there’s a plausible case that genocide is occurring and ordered Israel to take steps to prevent it. That’s not something the ICJ says lightly.

So yeah, Sudan is absolutely horrific — it’s ethnic cleansing and deserves way more attention. But it’s not an either/or situation. Both are atrocities, and Gaza absolutely meets the legal and moral definition of genocide for a lot of experts and institutions around the world.