...states explicitly "in whole OR IN PART" when talking about the destruction of a people facing genocide.

I would like to ask for a clarification regarding Ratner's comments, which were made in the context of the last Gaza massacre (masquerading as war): He endorsed Pappe's terminology of "incremental genocide," but while incremental genocide sounds like a term that makes a lot of sense with respect to the occupation after 50 years, it is not a legal term of art. It has no legal meaning and therefore using it in a context to make a legal case against Israel, which I presume is the ultimate goal, would not seem to be a useful exercise. Also, in the growing literature on genocide and with reference to Israel's actions, a key issue is whether Israel has the "intent" to destroy Palestinian society in whole or in part -- and by part, a return to the discussion by Lemkin and the framers of the Convention clearly indicate they meant a significant part of the population, not relatively small numbers that wouldn't change the demographic presence/balance -- or at least knew/knows that its actions could well lead to the destruction in whole or part of the population even if it can't be said that it was a direct intention (in fact, as of now, only intention is counted in int'l law re trying people for genocide, although legal scholars are trying to change this). These are issues that I believe need to be addressed before the term can hope to gain wide acceptance as an accurate legal description of, rather than a far less relevant political/polemical accusation against (however morally justified) Israeli actions.

I would also like to point out that Kimmerling's term "politicide" has a lot of possibility to use here, and works well with the much more easily proved accusation of Apartheid, as well as of ethnic cleansing, which while it is not itself a statute crime (in other words, there's no convention against it as there is with genocide, Apartheid, etc) is considered an element of crimes against humanity and genocide.

Frankly, I think the whole discussion of the appropriateness of the term "genocide" misses the real point. "Liberal" critics of the Israel/Palestine plank in the Movement for Black Lives platform have not confined themselves to questioning whether its language corresponds to the definition of "genocide" elucidated under customary international law. They have denounced it as "offensive" and anti-Semitic. This counterattack reveals the critics' true, and morally repugnant, insistence that Israel must enjoy special immunity from condemnation for its crimes -- however grave -- and that Jews reserve a unique status in the history of international victimization, one to which other oppressed peoples can never aspire. Both positions are indefensible.

Yes, there are legitimate grounds for preferring a narrow use of the term "genocide." But the same cannot be said for the imputation of moral shortcomings -- particularly the slanderous accusation of anti-Semitism -- to those who condemn official policies that by any definition are illegal, deadly and appallingly destructive. The abusive language aimed at BLM by J Street & Co. isn't wrong because it's arguably incorrect as a technical matter, like the terminology that so upsets their delicate sensibilities; it's wrong because it's intellectually dishonest and morally untenable. In other words, the critics' abuse of language is vastly more serious, and more offensive, than anything they purport to find in the movement's policy platform.

So I suggest that we focus our response on the critics' hypocrisy and the fundamental turpitude their own abuse of language reveals. For in accusing the platform of "offensive" or anti-Jewish terminology, these "liberals" have embraced the Israeli-Jewish exceptionalism that has always been one of the most pernicious elements in pro-Israel propaganda.