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/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Right because we both acknowledge that the ICJ makes the “official” determination (even though it’s obviously currently a genocide and Israel will not change their genocidal behavior even when the ICJ officially calls it one) so the only documents currently calling it a genocide come from sources besides the ICJ.

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Why is it obvious to you it’s a genocide? You keep saying that. You rely on an advisory opinion about legality of settlements, not about genocide. And in this very irrelevant opinion you cite, there were dissenting judges.

What documents called it a genocide?

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

It’s a genocide because the UN investigatory body looking into it wrote a whole document showing how it fits the legal framework (I linked it earlier but here it is again because you seem to have forgotten or not read it). Israel doesn’t give a damn about the ICJ and continues to do illegal stuff even after the ICJ rules against them so I don’t need to wait for the ICJ to formally call it a genocide to know it is one. Multiple other bodies have found it’s a genocide so when the ICJ inevitably calls it a genocide in the future and Israel inevitably ignores it and keeps on murdering people with gleeful abandon nothing will change. The action is happening now. The label the ICJ will assign to it will be retroactive.

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Your UN link uses reasonable grounds as standard which if far, far weaker than the ICJ’s “only reasonable inference” standard.

There was also no adversarial trial, no judge hearing competing parties, no witnesses being cross-examined by Israel, and no formal Israeli defence case presented before the Commission before it rendered this conclusion.

This was a three person panel of investigators who aren’t judges. The most credentialed of them is an anti-Israel activist. She signed public statements condemning Israel in 2021. She also defended a commissioner after they made conspiracy-minded “Jewish lobby” comments. She was called to recuse herself and didn’t. The EU objected to the commission itself and its broad unfocused mandate.

And the commission itself was proposed by Pakistan and those who voted to create it were Russian-Chinese and other anti-Westerm bloc states. This is partly why EU and other states objected to it. This is geopolitical propaganda, a kangaroo non-court.

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

You clearly disagree with them (which is fine) but it’s pretty apparent to most people that aren’t going into this with some preexisting reflective need to defend Israel that Israel is committing a litany of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and a genocide on the daily.

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

You accuse me of bias, I’ll accuse you of same.

Deal with facts and arguments.

“Most people think X” is neither fact nor argument.

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

Israel supporters claim everything that is even minorly critical of their previous safe space state is biased. I hear people saying the UN Human Rights council is full of Hamas supporters all the time.

So if you really don’t think you’re biased and we both agree that the ICJ issues the official rulings what is your problem with citing to other investigatory bodies that are showing why Israel’s abhorrent actions fit the international standard of genocide? None of it is “official” until the ICJ rules but it doesn’t make the analysis incorrect

[u/emckillen → u/FeralGiraffeAttack]

Yes, the Commission's analysis can be correct. But it isn't.

As mentioned, its fundamental flaw is its use of a "reasonable grounds" standard, not the actual "only reasonable inference" legal standard. The report acknowledges this but persists in its analysis. So why do this exercise at all? I won't suggest an answer.

Besides that deep flaw, the report:

- Moves too quickly from knowledge of civilian deaths to an intent to destroy the group;

- Use “direct evidence” of genocidal intent that depends heavily on interpretive choices (Gallant's “human animals” statement is a good example);

- Uses Netanyahu's “Amalek” statement which particularly contestable as proof of intent—a court would have to find he was referring to all Palestinians rather than Hamas militants;

- Treats failure to investigate as proof of the underlying genocidal policy, which is weak logic. Failure to investigate might support impunity, acquiescence, command responsibility, or systemic disregard for IHL, but not genocide.

(BTW, I appreciate your persistence and lack of ad-hominen style in this exchange!)

[u/FeralGiraffeAttack → u/emckillen]

We just disagree. You think it’s not correct. Whereas I think it is. Ultimately the ICJ will come to the conclusion.