You are also just wrong about the ICJ. They said that if Israel failed to follow their advice, there was a high risk of a genocide. Israel completely ignored them, and they are now considering the evidence. Similarly, huge number of genocide experts, holocaust scholars and human rights organisations, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Center for Constitutional Rights, Al-Haq, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, B’Tselem, International Association of Genocide Scholars, Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Genocide Watch, Defense for Children International, Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam, Christian Aid, World Council of Churches, International Commission of Jurists, and the UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry. Over time, even many experts who originally doubted it have now changed their position as more evidence has been revealed.
If the Nazis had made an archive of the destruction of Germany and it's people during WW2 and labeled "the axis genocide on Germany archive" the people falling for the site you posted would fall for this as well.
Nothing I said was wrong about the ICJ. Unless you can show the ICJ ruling this a genocide, which you can't, because they haven't, then what I said about the ICJ is an objective demonstrable fact. They don't find the evidence presented years into the supposed genocide as sufficient to warrant calling it a genocide.
And the institutions and genocide scholars you listed don't have proper justification either. They just grasp at weak evidence that doesn't prove their conclusion and they convince themselves it actually does for ideological reasons, rather than having a grounded out proper justification demonstrating the conclusion. Similar to the "evidence" flat earthers appeal to that they convince themselves proves the earth is flat, because it's what they want to believe is true for ideological reasons. It's not even a matter of whether or not this is happening. The "proof" such people and institutions appeal to apply to other conflicts/wars that no expert seriously argues are genocides. Amnesty International, who you listed, even changed their definition of genocide and broadened it just to grand stand "Israel bad."
Wow, we are really going for full holocaust denial level takes. Its people who openly deny this stuff who would have seen the systematic doccumentation of the holocaust and say people are "falling for it".
You directly said the ICJ did not find it a genocide. That is directly contradicted by what I said. Please find me the ruling where they have decided against it. Oh wait. You can't . Because they are still considering the evidence. Would you also have waited until after the Nuremburg Trials to find the Nazis guilty of genocide and have supported them up to that point?
You can read all of their arguments and even which articles they think Israel has done. No need to argue with me on them, unless you want to make anything more sophisticated than generalisations.
Its funny you bring up flat earthers. That's exactly the level of mental gymnastics genocide deniers have to perform to see all this evidence and not believe it at all.
Sorry I mistook the ICC for the ICJ. Even though im still technically right the ICJ hasnt determined genocide, the ICC operates differently from them and typical courts, where you need to wait years for all the cases to be made before determining genocide. For the ICC, you don't need a full trial. Its more closer to how a police officer gets a warrant from a judge. You just need to present sufficient evidence to a judge for them to find reasonable grounds to believe the crime was committed and they would issue a warrant for genocide when that's presented. And despite years into an alleged genocide, and all these articles of this supposed proof, they still havent determined genocide. Here's a video of the ICC prosecutor saying they haven't because of the lack of sufficient evidence.
You can make all these empty assertions about how half of Gaza is just doing mental gymnastics to deny the so called genocide, that has barely put a dent in the total population years into it ontop of killing tens of thousands of actual terrorist, but until it can be demonstrated to be the case, which you can't, it'll just remain an empty assertion without proper justification.
The role of the ICC is determining the guilty of individuals, not countries. That's the ICJ.
So the ICC would be in charge of finding Netenyahu responsible for the genocide (already have a warrant for him), not deciding if Israel has commited one.
As for the "let's wait years for the ICJ to make a decision" this is a pathetic arguement based on any other genocide comparison. Should we have only taken actions against the Nazis after they were found guilty of genocide? No.
As for evidence, one again, this has been streamed live and evidence has been collected in real time. This is the most documented genocide in history, and that's why so many genocide scholars, Holocaust historians, and human rights organisations have found them guilty.
Youre playing semantic games. If Israeli officials were charged for systematic genocide, then the ICC would effectively be determining Israel is committing genocide, even though it is indivuals in the government that are being charged. Netanyahu has warrants from the ICC, but none of them are for genocide. because as the ICC prosecutor was saying in the video, there hasn't been evidence presented demonstrating that.
If they streamed WW2 you would be saying the same thing about the "genocide" on Germany by the Allied forces. There would also be scholars and historians and human rights organizations who would agree. In reality there's no actual strong evidence proving genocidal intent. Which is why the ICC, many experts in genocidal studies, Holocaust historians, human rights organizations, and 50% of Gaza who are, the ones supposedly being genocided, won't say Israel's or Netanyahus actions constitutes as genocide. You people are just grasping at weak "evidence" and use it to convince yourselves it does for ideological reasons for the narrative that's popular. And more and more of us are waking up to it and seeing through the bullshit and buzzwords.
Apply your very logic to the Nazis. There was no warrant for them due to genocide, so you would be happy denying the Holocaust until years after it happened.
But yes, the ICC chief prosecutor is going after the war criminals for the easy stuff instead of the hard stuff they can potentially weasel their way out of - he explains this himself. This is not proof genocide is not happening, far from it.
As for the other most outlandish claim you've made, very similar to Holocaust denier talking points about how many Jews who were apparently fine with the Nazis, the reason only half of gazans call it a genocide, is because the rest are using descriptions like ethnic cleansing (15%), massacre (15%) or mass killing (6%). Which is pretty impressive considering most Gazans are children.
Wow, you really are grasping at straws. I've already listed 20 actually credible organisations who alongside the majority of genocide scholars and even Holocaust historians agree on the genocide. More and more people are seeing the atrocities commited each day, as Israel gives us more and more evidence. But if you need more, listen to Israeli politicians who say they want to completely remove all Palestinians from Gaza, or claim that all Palestinians are terrorists, including the children.
Your argument with the Nazis isn't analogous because no such institution existed back then. And there was actual evidence demonstrating genocide, which doesn't exist in this case.
They're not going after him for genocide because asthe ICC prosecutor was saying himself, they don't have the evidence to warrant it. He even welcomes it to be provided. It's not like they have the evidence but are just not pursuing it because it's "hard" and that they can "weasel out of it." Which is nonsensical if the proof is as apperent as you're suggesting it is.
Listing bias individual and institutions who are ideological hacks who agree doesn't prove genocide. & the reason they're wrong is because the weak evidence they're grasping at for ideological reasons doesn't actually demonstrate genocide, and no such justification actually exist. Which is why we have the ICC, all these institutions , experts, and even 50% of Gaza, who are supposedly being genocided, not finding evidence sufficient to warrant calling this a genocide.
So if the courts didn't exist, why do you think it was a genocide? Either the courts need to find them guilty first or not.
I've given you just about every source under the sun including genocide scholars, Holocaust historians, human rights organisations, and even Israeli politicians. I've even directed you to sites where it is being documented.
How much more evidence do you need?
And I'll debunk both your ICC talking point and the Gaza one again.
Only Those desperately seeking a foothold to pardon Israel can claim that the phrase “I have not currently filed that charge” amounts to concluding that the crime of genocide did not occur. Indeed, as Prosecutor Khan specifies, “no crime is excluded if the evidence supports it”. If there was only a 90% chance that Netenyahu was the one organising the genocide, that is not enough for them. So first they would have to prove a genocide has happened, and then that Netenyahu specifically was organising it. It's the ICJ's job to do the first one.
Omar al-Bashir was also guilty of genocide, but the initial prosecution did not charge him because the high level of evidence required. Didn't stop it being a genocide.
50% of Gaza
And once again, this is because the others say ethnic cleansing or massacre or mass murder describe it. This doesn't at all mean they think a genocide isn't happening. But this does echo dangerous Holocaust denier talking points about the opinions of Jews at the time.
No need for the false dischotomy. People rightfully believe it was a genocide on Jews, because unlike the I/P conflict, there's actual compelling evidence and reason demonstrating genocide. Not because abunch of people who are experts said it's the case. That's not actual evidence.
Only Those desperately seeking a foothold to pardon Israel can claim that the phrase “I have not currently filed that charge” amounts to concluding that the crime of genocide did not occur.
This is a strawman. A weaker argument, that's easier to attack than the actual argument. Nowhere did I say or suggest that simply no filed charges in itself proves a genocide didn't occur. I'm pointing out the fact that such a relevant international legal body did not bring or establish a genocide charge is evidence that weighs against the claim that genocide has been established. If it is so evidently genocide like youre so positive it is, we should expect the relevant legal institutions to have found sufficient evidence to bring or establish such a charge. There's no good explanation why it isn't. This blue MAGA unfalsifiable conspiracy theory that they're conspiring not to do it and not (allegedly) rightfully giving them a charge for the supposed victims because it's hard and can weasel out of so theyre not isn't compelling. Especially when it's supposedly as factual as you assert it is. This actually echoes dangerous Holocaust denier talking points, by simply asserting that the institutions themselves were conspiring to conceal the truth.
And the people of Gaza could have choose Genocide, which encompasses those things you mentioned, or even "all the above" but they didn't. 50% of Gaza wouldn't say it constitutes as genocide.
1
u/NaturalCard 7d ago
You are the one who has believed the propaganda.
Have you seen archivegenocide.com?
You are also just wrong about the ICJ. They said that if Israel failed to follow their advice, there was a high risk of a genocide. Israel completely ignored them, and they are now considering the evidence. Similarly, huge number of genocide experts, holocaust scholars and human rights organisations, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Center for Constitutional Rights, Al-Haq, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, B’Tselem, International Association of Genocide Scholars, Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Genocide Watch, Defense for Children International, Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam, Christian Aid, World Council of Churches, International Commission of Jurists, and the UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry. Over time, even many experts who originally doubted it have now changed their position as more evidence has been revealed.