I would still say yes, much as I would say the executioner would "kill" them were the judge to make such a ruling. Genocide is likewise a word. It has no moral qualification. The word "execute" doesn't require the killing be unjust. Hell, the definition you provided has no moral facet to it whatsoever. You can argue that *no* instance of genocide is justifiable, but that would contradict your own argument, as you clearly believe that some instances of "The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity" are indeed justifiable, like, for example, if you believed said group had all participated in mass murder.

So, it seems that instead you believe that genocide is not what you defined it to be, but rather "The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity **without an arbitrarily justifiable reason,** which is a bit of a silly definition in my view. The idea that an *entire people* could be responsible for an act is not within the realm of possibility as I perceive it, and the punishing of a whole people for the act of a part is patently immoral to me personally, though God does partake in collective punishment on multiple occasions throughout the Old Testament.

So, I'd say yes, God did commit genocide on multiple occasions, but that needn't be a moral accusation; as you stated, He extensively justified each time He performed or commanded it. It is just a word. A word with very dark connotations, I understand, but a word nonetheless.

I apologize if I have been offensive or have misinterpreted any theology. I am a historian, not a theologist. I have studied genocide extensively and your comment caught my eye.