I'm not a leftist but I figure I'll get a better response here than /pol/
I'm neoliberal (socially progressive, economically liberal) and Jewish; most of my immediate and extended family are very socially left-leaning but generally pro-Israel among the people above the age of 40 and very anti-Israel among the people below the age of 40. Some people in the extended family are native-born Israelis. I've never heard any sort of Islamophobic or anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian comment from any of them in my life, including during this period, but throughout the war they were extremely concerned about the hostages and just wanted to do whatever to support the hostages and see them be rescued.
I and I think many other people vacillate on if Israeli was/is conducting a necessary defensive operation to approximately the best of their ability while preserving civilian wellbeing, or being excessive and lax, or being genocidal. There are documented atrocities, and periods where necessary aid was not being permitted in until international pressure caused them to relent, so without a doubt there were undeniable war crimes. I do not know who to believe on where to rank the scale of the war crimes. How often were munitions excessively sized for killing particular militants, etc.
What are good ways I can epistemologically disentangle all of this? What are clear demarcation lies for genocide in terms of action? The typical qualification is genocidal intent, and it seems a bit hazy what the intent is. Some of the most extreme politicians made comments that could be interpreted as genocidal, but it's unclear if they had any influence over policy. Others made comments that were ambiguous as to whether they referred to militants vs. the population as a whole.
Clear atrocities include things like the massacre of Gazan health care workers in Rafah and torturing the two survivors. Israel later acknowledged this was improper and a mistake, but did not charge anyone.
Other notable examples are shooting civilians waiting for food (for being unaware they were "too close" to a guarded zone) and civilians unknowingly crossing "red lines" post-ceasefire.
Another common statement is that Israel deliberately targeted Gazan journalists. My understanding is Israel acknowledges deliberate targeting of journalists who were members of Hamas and denies targeting any non-Hamas journalists (many non-Hamas journalists have died, but Israel claims the
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.