Very Minority Report-y perspective. Not the way the convention works. If there is a chance of genocide, other countries should use political pressure to prevent it, but a country can’t be judged to be in violation of the convention just because someone fears genocide may happen.
Violating provisional orders is a violation of the convention. Other countries have an obligation under the genocide convention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) to apply pressure to prevent genocide. The only party which can authorize a military intervention is the UNSC.
Been at this long enough. You are stretching intl conventions beyond their meaning, and I fear you will discover, as did the League of Nations in 1935, that there’s no intl law framework there when you need it.
That's kind of my point. If you go by the letter of the law this is genocide in black and white. But the actual application of the law is in the hands of states who have their own interests.
So I think this is more a tactical disagreement than a disagreement over whether Israel’s actions are proper - it’s just a question in my mind of how improper.
I think if you want to talk in pure legal terms this is unambiguous. But exactly how the law will be applied remains to be seen. Based on jurisprudence it's hard to see this being anything besides a slam dunk.
I actually don’t think it’s genocide by the letter yet. I think the Israelis are feeling their oats and will talk themselves over the line soon. But in the meantime I would focus on provable war crimes - disproportionate force, failure to exercise care or intentional infliction of harm on civilians.