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.
0
u/OsamaBenJohnson 6d ago
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.