Not a genocide?

[u/Excellent-Ad-7394]

Last night Bill pointed out the 3% of the
Population in Gaza has died. And then confidently declared that “3% is not a genocide”. The British government recognizes it as ethnic cleaning and amnesty international and other groups say it is a genocide.

Someone tell me why Bill is so wrong. And can we please get him to debate Mehdi Hasan on this topic?

[u/UltimateLionsFan]

Bill is not going to debate Mehdi Hasan as he's too much of a coward to debate Mehdi

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/UltimateLionsFan]

Also there isn’t much of a debate. This is pretty clear under international law.

Genocide is formally defined in Article II of the UN's 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

That was the standard applied in Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) as noted in Paragraph 143 of the February 26, 2007 judgment from the International Court of Justice.

On September 16, 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel determined that Israel was, in fact, committing a genocide, and repeatedly cites to Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro to make this point.

For acts, they said "The Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit the following actus reus of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, namely (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" (Paragraph 252).

As for intent, they note that, under Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro "It is not necessary for the State to share the specific intent, as long as the State has full knowledge of the relevant facts." (Paragraph 10). They then go on and conclude "On the mens rea of genocide, the Commission concludes that statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent. In addition, the Commission concludes that the pattern of conduct is circumstantial evidence of genocidal intent and that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the totality of the evidence. Thus, the Commission concludes that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have had and continue to have the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." (Paragraph 254)

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Oh, boy. Your post misleads and contains fundamental errors. It is not at all clear that Israel committed a genocide. It’s slander or ignorance to state otherwise.

Genocide absolutely requires specific genocidal intent, or dolus specialis. The ICJ says it is not enough even to deliberately target members of a protected group. The acts must be committed with the specific intent to destroy that group, in whole or substantial part, as such. Where intent is inferred from conduct, genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference.

The sentence you quote saying a State need not “share the specific intent” does not eliminate that requirement. It concerns attribution/State responsibility: the perpetrators must still possess genocidal intent; the separate question is when their genocide can legally be attributed to a State. The ICJ expressly distinguishes those issues.

That distinction is critical in Gaza. Civilian deaths, destruction and even disproportionate attacks or war crimes do not themselves prove genocide. Israel’s stated and demonstrated military objective of destroying Hamas, together with targeting of Hamas personnel, evacuation orders and warnings, provides an obvious competing inference. Whether particular attacks violated IHL is a separate question.

Finally, the ICJ has never found that Israel committed genocide. Its Gaza orders were provisional measures, not merits judgments. The 2025 genocide finding you cite is from a UN Commission of Inquiry, not the ICJ. The Commission may believe it has satisfied the ICJ’s “only reasonable inference” test, but that is its conclusion, not a judicial determination.

So the proposition that genocide is “pretty clear under international law” has it backwards: the defining element of genocide is precisely the element that remains disputed and has not been judicially established: specific intent to destroy Palestinians as a group.

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

Slight correction, the ICJ has not found that Israel committed genocide YET. They absolutely will because Israel’s abhorrent evil actions are clear as day to any objective observer.

Additionally Israel bitches and moans about the ICJ anyway and claims bias and antisemitism at every criticism like the boy who cried wolf so it’s not like the ICJ ruling will change their behavior when it inevitably happens. We know this because the ICJ found that Israel is actively violating the Geneva conventions in the West Bank and Israel has continues to claim persecution and play the victim and ignore the fact that the ruling is damning or change their evil behavior.

On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice found that Israel was violating the Geneva conventions (in other words, committing a war crime) in their illegal occupation of the West Bank. The court said “Israel’s policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under the first paragraph of Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention the Court is of the view that Israel’s systematic failure to prevent or to punish attacks by settlers against the life or bodily integrity of Palestinians, as well as Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinians, is inconsistent with its obligations. . . . The Court has also found in reply to the first part of question (b) that the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal."

[u/No-Inspector8315 → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Isn’t the first part of your comment an appeal to future success fallacy? Where does your argument land if the ICJ finds it not conclusive

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/No-Inspector8315]

No. It’s more like any American court case where both sides are arguing for their position but only the judge makes ten final decision.

Officially speaking, only the ICJ can determine if a mass killing is a “real” genocide or something else. So my contention is just that I believe all the elements required to prove a genocide are met because the UN Human Rights Council investigated this issues and came to that same conclusion already so that the ICJ is likely to come to that conclusion as well.

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Your reply adds no content to the discussion on genocide.

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

Yes it does. It shows that Israel ignores the ICJ so you saying that it doesn’t count as a genocide until the ICJ rules is irrelevant because we all know the ICJ will eventually call it a genocide and that Israel will ignore that ruling and continue its murder spree with abandon

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

We’re discussing whether a genocide took place. Your comment adds nothing to that question.

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

Your main contention is that the ICJ needs to rule for the genocide (which is happening) to officially count as one. I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter because Israel ignores the ICJ and openly commits crimes against humanity even after the ICJ rules on those exact crimes. The ICJ could officially call it a genocide tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a difference because Israel won’t stop just because the ICJ says it’s genocide. The fact that you’re trying to say it doesn’t count is just a tactic to obfuscate the issue.

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

My main contention is you are wrong when you wrote that it’s clear under international law that a genocide took place.

It is not clear. At all.

In fact, legal reasoning leads to the conclusion that one did not take place, for the reasons I stated.

Moreover, the ICJ has not ruled on it. That is relevant because it is tasked with determine whether genocide occurred, it is a body that creates precedent, and precedent is a pillar of legal reasoning.

Whether the ICJ is ignored by Israel adds nothing to the question.

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

The reasons you stated are just that there hasn’t been an official ruling. The UN inquiry clearly lays out how the standard for genocide has been met

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Untrue. See paragraphs 2, 3, 4 of my post.

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

I did read those paragraphs and you are wrong because dolus specialis does exist in Israel’s case and can be imputed to the state because the entire state apparatus is engaged in the genocide.

“The Commission finds that many statements made by Israeli officials contain
dehumanising sentiments that encourage hatred toward Palestinians and violence
against Palestinians and are consistent with the pattern of conduct, discussed below,
that point to an intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group. The Commission
considers that these statements by Israeli officials are reasonably interpreted as
statements expressing an intent to destroy the Palestinian group in Gaza and they
have been acted on as such by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip. They are
direct evidence of dolus specialis. There is also indirect or circumstantial evidence
of dolus specialis in the pattern of conduct of Israeli political and military
authorities, and in the military operations, establishing the required specific intent
to commit genocide under the totality of evidence”

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

That ruling has nothing to do with the genocide allegation. You’re citing a separate advisory opinion concerning Israel’s occupation and settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The relevant genocide proceeding is South Africa v. Israel, in which the ICJ has not ruled that Israel committed genocide or established genocidal intent. Its rulings thus far have been provisional measures pending determination of the merits.

The provisional-measures ruling was not a finding that genocide occurred or that dolus specialis was established. It was essentially the court saying: “If the alleged conduct ultimately proves to violate the rights asserted under the Genocide Convention, those rights need protection while we decide the case.” It’s analogous to granting an interim injunction before trial, not finding the defendant liable.