> According to the prosecutor he didn't think a case could be made. The key is that "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" part.
That's a different prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, who was an ICC prosecutor. NPR talked to [1] David M. Crane, who is a founding chief prosecutor on the U.N. Special Court for Sierra Leone.
So in other words, even experts on this topic disagree. So I don't think one prosecutor saying "no, this isn't genocide" is definitive -- just like another saying "yes, this is genocide" isn't either.
Ultimately we may never know if Netanyahu has sat behind closed doors and has said things about his intentions in Palestine that would meet the UN definition of genocide. So we can only guess based on what we do know and have seen.
FWIW, to me, this feels pretty genocide-y. The funny thing about the bit you paraphrased from Crane:
> and those need to be officials that also had the means to carry out or cause to be carried out that destruction
... is that by this definition, I don't think we can classify Hamas as genocidal, as they don't seem to have the war capability to actually "carry out or cause to be carried out" a genocide upon Israel.
Moreno Ocampo, the former ICC prosecutor interviewed, actually said the opposite you're claiming. See https://www.aljazeera.com/program/upfront/2023/12/1/former-i...