I have a feeling that they’re only publishing this now that it’s convenient for them, but honestly, aside from the neoliberal viewpoint, it was not one of the worst articles that I’ve ever read. I have talked before about this word and I rarely use it precisely because it can be so ambiguous. There isn’t even a scholarly consensus on it.

Scott Straus has counted 21 different definitions of genocide. Genocide has been a legal, political, moral, and empirical concept that means different things to different people.^10^ There are several scholars, including Helen Fein, Leo Kuper, Herbert Hirsch, and Kurt Jonassohn, who question the very rationale for the debate on definition. In view of the ‘bewildering array of definitions’, as Kuper put it, the UN Genocide Convention is indeed the only reasonable option.^11^

Usually, the dissenters express their disagreement by refusing to participate in the argument. Nobody has dared to put it plainly: the debate on definition of genocide is futile! Scholars may continue arguing about the term ‘genocide’ for decades, without reaching any conclusions, or even a working definition more functional than that agreed upon in 1948. It is practically impossible, considering all the different professional backgrounds of the participants in the discourse (put it to vote?).

Some commentators have objected to the UN Genocide Convention as a political compromise between major international players. However, international law is made up of political agreements. Were the discussion on the definition of genocide to be reopened today at the UN — which is rather unlikely — politics would come to dominate the debate much the same as they did 60 years earlier.

(Emphasis added. Source.)

I certainly don’t blame the OP for assuming ill faith: this is the Wall Street Journal, after all, and the timing is a reasonable cause for suspicion. That being said, I would still prefer that we use other terms for this type of atrocity. What the neocolonists are attempting is extermination.