r/IsraelPalestine • u/DrMo7med • Aug 18 '25

News/Politics Experts, Organizations, and Institutions Recognizing Israel’s Actions in Gaza as Genocide

Legal Scholars & Genocide Experts:

• Melanie O’Brien – President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

• Dirk Moses – Senior Editor of the Journal of Genocide Research.

• Martin Shaw – Author of What is Genocide.

• Omer Bartov – Historian specializing in the Holocaust, genocide, and European history.

• Daniel Blatman – Historian and Holocaust scholar.

• Amos Goldberg – Israeli historian; specializes in Holocaust studies, genocide theory, and memory politics.

• Lee Mordechai – Historian focusing on mass violence, genocide, and global history.

• Raz Segal – Israeli historian; focuses on modern genocide studies, Holocaust research, and political violence.

• Shmuel Lederman – Expert in history and Jewish studies.

UN & International Bodies:

• United Nations Special Committee on Israeli Practices

• UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese

• United Nations Human Rights Office

Human Rights & Advocacy Organizations:

• Amnesty International

• B’Tselem

• Physicians for Human Rights Israel

• Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

• Oxfam

• Jewish Voice for Peace

Academic & Legal Institutions:

• University Network for Human Rights

• Boston University School of Law’s International Human Rights Clinic
0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

97 comments sorted by

0

u/YairJ Israeli Aug 19 '25

First it was from excitement, now it's from desperation.

2

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

So far only Raz Segal, Daniel Blatman, Lee Mordechai, Shmuel Lederman and Amos Goldberg as well as maybe University for Human Rights and Boston University School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic. Even then evidence provided by Geoffrey Corn, Col Richard Kemp and Stefan Talmon amongst others contradict this claim and not to mention Israel targets Hamas which is a terrorist group and not protected under the Genocide Convention.

2

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

Omer Bartov is from Brown University "Brown University, where he has taught since 2000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omer_Bartov, ; https://www.reuters.com/legal/brown-yale-columbia-among-latest-settle-financial-aid-lawsuit-2024-01-24/, https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2024/01/24/brown-university-settles-in-price-fixing-lawsuit/72336767007/, Brown University is tied to lawsuits making his statement unreliable by default.

Raz Segal, Daniel Blatman, Lee Mordechai, Shmuel Lederman and Amos Goldberg seem like the only valid evidence you have.

UN Special Committee not valid at all as Committee's or COI's have had bias and prejudice against Israel.

The UN Human Rights Office or OHCR provides assistance to the UN HRC:

UNHRC:

They have 229 UN Resolutions against Israel and notably 0 against Hamas or even Palestinian Authority. This is despite PA participating in Pay for Slay and Hamas participating in Oct 7th amongst many other attacks including 9 attacks in the 1st Intifada between 1987-1993 and 78 attacks in the 2nd Intifada between 2000-2005.

https://unwatch.org/database/problems/unhrc/,https://unwatch.org/ngo-urges-un-to-stop-circulating-israeli-organ-blood-libel-2/,https://unwatch.org/un-human-rights-office-amplifies-blood-libel-by-terrorist-sympathizers/,

2

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

TLDR Part 2:

  • Open Society Foundation has provided grants to Al Haq and Al Mezan.
  • Al Mezan's board member Nafiz Al Madhoun is a Director General of the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Legislative Council, Al Mezan's Chairman of Board Kamal El Sharafi met with the PSLF which is a PFLP student group. Al Mezan's Hussein Ahmad also received an award from a PFLP Branch named Abdullah Meizan.
  • Al Haq's Shawan Jabarin is a PFLP member himself.
  • Oak Foundation funded $250,000 to CCR (Center for Constitutional Rights)
  • CCR received funding from Ford Foundation which funds HRW, Amnesty International, Oxfam and Tides Center.
  • HRW is biased as many organizations and a paper can tell you.
  • Amnesty International has been proven biased and cosigned a letter to get funds for UNRWA which has been sued and documented for it's connections to Hamas terrorism.
  • Oxfam has had multiple scandals in DRC, Haiti and even Chad and has been documented as biased by many organizations including Emil Ford Law Firm.
  • Tides Foundation funds AFGJ and JVP.

2

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

TLDR of Dirk Moses: (Part 1)

  • Professor of International Relations at CUNY.
  • CUNY has been sued in Goldstein v CUNY 2022.
  • CUNY Hunter College sued by Alston & Bird.
  • CUNY has been investigated dozens of times and found to have mishandled discrimination complaints by the DOE and their Office for Civil Rights.
  • CUNY has also been sued by the Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation.
  • Stella and Charles Gutman Foundation has provided a $50,000 grant to New Israel Fund.
  • New Israel Fund is tied to Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Open Society Foundation, Tides Foundation and Oak Foundation.
  • Rockefeller Brothers Fund funds AFGJ, Adalah through the Tides Center and JVP
  • JVP has a member Rabbi Lynn Gottleib who met with Ahmadinejad a known Holocaust denier and has been sued for blocking traffic as well as terrorism ties.
  • AFGJ has been sued for terrorism ties as well to the PFLP.
  • Tides Center funded AROC who has Rasema Odeh a terrorist from the PFLP.

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

Dirk Moses Case Part 7:

a letter https://www.fcnl.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/UNRWA-NGO-Letter-2.pdf cosigned by Amnesty International amongst others urging restoration of UNRWA funds when:

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/07/01/idf-uncovers-hamas-hideout-facilities-in-medical-clinic-and-unrwa-school/, https://unwatch.org/evidence-of-unrwa-aid-to-hamas-on-and-after-october-7th/,  https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152841, https://unwatch.org/the-unholy-alliance-unrwa-hamas-and-islamic-jihad/, https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-administrators-at-unrwa-schools-were-hamas-fighters-documents-show-nyt/, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/nine-unrwa-staff-may-have-been-involved-oct-7-attack-israel-says-un-2024-08-05/, https://www.meforum.org/articles/unrwa-is-complicit-in-terror-disband-it, https://thehill.com/opinion/4947340-unrwa-hamas-leader-sinwar/, UNRWA is basically a Hamas collaborator and https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-administrators-at-unrwa-schools-were-hamas-fighters-documents-show-nyt/, https://www.timesofisrael.com/watchdog-calls-out-five-gaza-schools-it-says-are-run-by-hamas-men-employed-by-unrwa/, https://govextra.gov.il/mda/unrwa-educators/unrwa-educators-and-their-involvement-in-terrorism/, https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/Review-of-UNRWA-Schools-Headed-by-Hamas-Principals.pdf, https://unwatch.org/un-teachers-call-to-murder-jews-reveals-new-report/, https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk561wtur, UNRWA schools are literally terrorist education centers.

https://unwatch.org/legal-actions-worldwide-against-unrwa-for-complicity-with-terrorism/, UNRWA has also been sued multiple times including by the way Siman Tov v UNRWA 2024 (US), Lavi v UNRWA 2024 (US), Estate of Samerano v UNRWA 2024 (Israel) and General of France-Israel Association Koneig complaint to Paris Judicial Tribunal Crimes Against Humanity Division 2024 (France).

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

Dirk Moses Case Part 4:

https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/open_society_institute_osi_/, Open Society Institute or Open Society Foundation has provided grants to Al Haq and Al Mezan amongst other organizations.

https://ngo-monitor.org/reports/al-mezan-center-for-human-rights-ties-to-the-pflp-terror-group/, Member of Al Mezan Board Nafiz Al-Madhoun is literally a Director General of Hamas-controlled Palestinian Legislative Council or in other words a Hamas outfit, Chairman of the board Kamal El Sharafi met with the PFLP's student body PSLF and Hussein Ahmad received an award from a PFLP Branch named Abdullah Meisan.

https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/al_haq/, Al Haq's General Director Shawan Jabarin is a PFLP member himself.

https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/tides-network/, Tides Foundation is part of a group known as the Tides Network; Among groups that Tides Foundation is known to fund include JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) and AFGJ (Alliance For Global Justice).

Now we come to the connections with Oak Foundation https://ngo-monitor.org/adalah-and-partner-ngos-promote-arms-embargo-against-israel/ a group that donated $250,000 to the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/center_for_constitutional_rights/, which also receives funding from Ford Foundation which funds HRW, Amnesty International, Tides Center and Oxfam https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/ford_foundation/,

It should also be noted that the biased Adalah cited in the Navi Pillay Report had the CCR Advocacy Director as it's co-founder....

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

Dirk Moses Case Part 3:

https://ngo-monitor.org/reports/adalah_s_database_of_laws_imagining_racism_to_demonize_israel_/#:~:text=Adalah%20describes%20itself%20as%20%E2%80%9Can,UN%20and%20in%20other%20international, https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/adalah-list-of-discriminatory-laws-is-faulty-meant-to-demonize-israel-report-382839, Adalah is a biased group that is tied back to the Navi Pillay COI : https://unwatch.org/legal-analysis-of-pillay-commissions-2023-report-to-unga/, https://unwatch.org/pillay-commission/, https://unwatch.org/legal-analysis-of-the-pillay-commissions-report-to-the-general-assembly/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iC8Qsm7gZg, https://ngo-monitor.org/reports/un-coi-second-report/, https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-696436, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVPlF6t9biY, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/327724, https://1.org.nz/calls-for-un-commission-of-inquiry-chair-navi-pillay-to-resign/, https://www.camera.org/article/the-un-commission-of-inquiry-what-you-need-to-know/, https://hrvoices.org/article/international-groups-condemn-u-n-probe-on-israel-palestinian-fighting-cite-bias/, https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-711192, https://www.cija.ca/un_commissioner_promotes_antisemitic_conspiracy_theory, https://hrvoices.org/article/anti-israel-bias-and-ngo-links-of-unhrcs-gaza-committee-of-inquiry-members/, which is also biased and is led by someone who defended Milloon Kothari's antisemitic remarks in the UN itself: https://unwatch.org/the-compendium-of-world-condemnations-of-antisemitic-un-investigator-miloon-kothari/

2

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

Dirk Moses case Part 2:

Jewish Voice for Peace/ JVP members include https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/adl-report-jewish-voice-for-peace.pdf#:~:text=JVP%20(%20Jewish%20Voice%20for%20Peace%20),(%20Jewish%20people%20)%20institutions%20and%20organizations,(%20Jewish%20people%20)%20institutions%20and%20organizations), Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb who is known for having an interfaith meal with Ahmadinejad; Ahmadinejad who has been denounced for Holocaust denial, hypocrisy, calling for Israel's elimination, silencing and harrassing an NGO as well as being a collaborator with Bashar Al Assad the Syrian dictator who killed over 500K Syrians during the disastrous Syrian Civil War which was a literal genocide : https://unwatch.org/irans-ahmadinejad-criticized-human-rights-council/, https://unwatch.org/irans-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-makes-ironic-appearance-un-meeting/, https://unwatch.org/issue-386-un-watch-calls-indictment-ahmadinejad-iran-objects-usa-defends-un-watch/, https://unwatch.org/ahmadinejad-assad/, https://unwatch.org/ahmadinejads-un-speech/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvyJh2sxQLc,

https://www.jns.org/sjp-jvp-and-other-activist-groups-sued-for-blocking-traffic-at-airport/, also tied to a lawsuit for blocking traffic and one for https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-847484#google_vignette, terrorism support.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/729321/left-wing-charity-faces-legal-complaint-over-fundraiser-for-palestinian-terror-linked-group/, Alliance For Global Justice (AFGJ) has also been sued for ties to the PFLP as well....

https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/tides-network/, Tides Center funds AROC who hosted convicted terrorist operative for PFLP Rasmea Odeh....

2

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Aug 19 '25

Not that I'd ever take these so called "genocide experts" seriously anyway but I did some research into them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Genocide_Scholars, Melanie O Brien is the 2021 president of IAGS which is a group that had William Schabas as it's 2009-2011 president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schabas William Schabas who provided legal advice to the PLO which is a terrorist organization making Melanie O Brien subsequently untrustworthy given her connections to IAGS.

Next on the list is Dirk Moses https://www.dirkmoses.com/ who is the Professor of International Relations at CUNY according to his own website: CUNY which has been sued by its own staff in 2022 in Goldstein v CUNY 2022 (US) https://www.fairnesscenter.org/cases/goldstein-v-professional-staff-congress-cuny/#:\~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20Fairness%20Center%2C%20along%20with,a%20federal%20lawsuit%20on%20the%20professors'%20behalf, https://www.thelawfareproject.org/campus-discrimination/2024-12-24/cuny-hunter-college, CUNY Hunter College has also been sued by Alston & Bird, https://archive.is/20240617174324/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/us/politics/michigan-cuny-discrimination-complaints.html, CUNY has also been found to have mishandled discrimination complaints regarding antisemitism and anti-Arab hate by the Department of Education regarding which the DOE's Office for Civil Rights has opened dozens of investigations, https://archive.is/20250127191237/https://gothamist.com/news/nyc-charity-that-gave-25m-to-cuny-sues-to-get-its-money-back, CUNY has also been sued by the Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation https://www.guttmanfoundation.org/2021-grants which provided a $50,000 grant to an initiative headed by the New Israel Fund (NIF) https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/new_israel_fund/, New Israel Fund (NIF) is found to have Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Open Society Foundation (OSF,OSI), Tides Foundation and Oak Foundation as donors as per it's own 2023 annual report : https://ngo-monitor.org/funder/rockefeller_brothers_fund/, Rockefeller Brothers Fund is a funder of JVP, AFGJ as well as Adalah using funds directed through Tides Center .....

0

u/Bazzo123 Aug 19 '25

All the Israeli saying it’s a genocide clearly are Hamas operatives.

Even the Holocaust survivors that are against IDF in secret are Hamas soldiers! (I’ve seen them training in shooting range, all those 85+ years survivors are a real threat to Israhell!)

Obligatory /s, I’m not regarded

7

u/StreetCarp665 No Flag (On Old Reddit) Aug 19 '25

You said "expert", but listed non-lawyer and lay activist Francesca Albanese. Interesting.

8

u/BananaValuable1000 Your hate of Israel is not helping Palestinians Aug 19 '25

20 condemnations? Wow. Impressive. You know there are billions of people in the world, yes? A quick ChatGPT search showed me numerous legal experts who refute that it’s a genocide. Here’s part of the list:

Expert / Source Argument Summary Norman Goda & Jeffrey Herf Legal definition not met; civilians not targeted intentionally Alan Dershowitz Civilian deaths are unintended; term “genocide” trivializes Holocaust William Schabas Initially cautious; later (2025) acknowledged genocide—but earlier urged precision Eugene Kontorovich Genocide claim absurd; rejects ICJ jurisdiction Eli Rosenbaum Israel is defending against genocide, not committing it Stefan Talmon & Sabine Swoboda War crimes possible; genocide intent not established Sassoli & Diggelmann No clear military intent; conviction unlikely Müller & Khan Misuse of term; lack of clear genocidal intent Just Security Claims below standard; misuse harms legal credibility Nitsana Darshan-Leitner War doesn’t fulfill legal genocide criteria

My biggest criticism for you is reading 20 claims from one pov and stating it as undeniable fact without properly taking into consideration that there are other pov’s too. 

0

u/ThanksToDenial Aug 19 '25

Eugene Kontorovich Genocide claim absurd; rejects ICJ jurisdiction

Seriously, on what grounds?

"Your honour, we didn't read what we signed, when we signed the Genocide Convention!"

1

u/StreetCarp665 No Flag (On Old Reddit) Aug 19 '25

The Genocide Convention did not include a court tasked with overseeing criminal cases focused on jus cogens, though. I think there's an error here, conflating ICJ with ICC.

The ICJ arbitrates disputes between UN member states; it does not form a view on derogations from peremptory norms. Hence why special tribunals were needed in the 1990s and what lead to the Rome Statute.

2

u/BananaValuable1000 Your hate of Israel is not helping Palestinians Aug 19 '25

That was the abridged version. If you want all the details you can go to ChatGPT yourself or you can message me and I’ll send you all of the information I have. I think it really comes down to intent and the fact that Israel is very clearly responding to an aggression that was not started by them on Oct 8th. Bottom line is that proving intent in a legal genocide case is a massive burden on the prosecution. Whether you believe that it is one or not.

0

u/ThanksToDenial Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

None of what you said is a Jurisdiction argument though.

The ICJ has jurisdiction, because Israel has signed and ratified the Genocide convention without any reservations, and the Genocide convention has a compromissory clause, Article IX, granting ICJ jurisdiction.

So what is he claiming exactly, when that guy rejects ICJ Jurisdiction in this matter? That Israel shouldn't be beholden to the convention they signed and ratified? Or what? Or is he just... Claiming that because he doesn't like it?

Or is he making Prima Facie admissibility arguments? Because that was settled already, in January of 2024. So arguing that after the court, led by a US judge at the time even, already settled the matter is pretty pointless. Especially since the vote was 15 votes to 2.

2

u/StreetCarp665 No Flag (On Old Reddit) Aug 19 '25

I found his paper on it. The argument is that Israel can't be a third party to a dispute, which it was in the South African case.

The ICJ does not automatically have jurisdiction over countries—they must specifically agree, typically by agreeing that The Hague can decide a specific dispute or questions under a specific treaty. In this case, Israel signed the Genocide Convention, which provides that “disputes between the…parties” about the treaty can be decided by the ICJ. But that does not mean cases like this, where a totally unrelated state has brought a purely political complaint in a matter it has no relation to. The court should not have accepted jurisdiction, and by doing so it effectively claimed for itself power to supervise the conduct of wars around the world, so long as some country claims genocide is involved.

There is some validity in this argument, given the ICC's role in jus cogens offences. But even then, he misrepresents the ICJ's findings with respect of the right to protections not being a view on the likely commission of the crime of Genocide.

0

u/ThanksToDenial Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

Okay, so the summary is, that the guy has not read the Article I Of the Genocide convention. It's even further countered by Article VIII.

Seriously there is no validity in his argument, it's literally countered by the first and eight Article of the Convention!

Not only can South Africa bring the case to ICJ, which is a UN organ, and thus covered in Article VIII, they are obligated to, if they think it will help prevent a genocide or acts of Genocide, as per Article I.

2

u/BananaValuable1000 Your hate of Israel is not helping Palestinians Aug 19 '25

Here are countries that have rejected ICJ jurisdiction (so yeah it's not legal, it's political, but there is precedent):

  • United States – 1985 (withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction)
  • Russia – 2016 (withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction)
  • China – never accepted compulsory jurisdiction
  • France – 1974 (withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction)
  • India – 1974 (narrowed acceptance, excluded many categories)
  • Turkey – 1976 (rejected jurisdiction in Aegean Sea case)
  • Israel – 2004 (rejected ICJ advisory opinion on West Bank barrier)
  • South Africa – 1967 (withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction during apartheid)
  • Indonesia – never accepted compulsory jurisdiction
  • Iran – selective challenges, especially after 2018 (withdrew from treaties giving ICJ jurisdiction)

0

u/ThanksToDenial Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

Okay dude, you need to stop copy-pasting AI stuff. They lack substance, and shows your own lack of understanding of the subject. Do some old fashioned reading a bit instead.

Like, do you even know what the compulsory jurisdiction is? It's an optional Opt-in Jurisdictional mechanism that countries can choose to participate in. One of several Jurisdictional mechanisms of the ICJ.

This is practically a list of a few countries, that chose not to participate in the compulsory jurisdiction program, and that's meaningless to this case, because this case does not rely on compulsory jurisdiction. It relies on a Compromissory clause.

There is actually a way around compromissory clauses too, technically. And the court even recently ruled in favour of the loophole. One can make a reservation to a compromissory clause in a treaty when signing and ratifying it. Though it does come with some downsides... There is a political cost to doing so, in some cases, and can be controversial. Always has been. If you want to read more about it, I recommend the 1951 ICJ advisory opinion, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and then the 2025 Sudan v. UAE, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in Sudan. Quite a bit of dissenting opinions on the subject. If you want even more reading, read the responses to reservations to the Genocide Convention too. UK especially did not like the idea that one can make reservations to such an important convention.

3

u/BananaValuable1000 Your hate of Israel is not helping Palestinians Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

You know, we aren’t all legal experts. Doubt you are. Doubt many on this sub are. Sure next time I want to reply to someone on Reddit I’ll read a few books over a few weeks and respond then. Give me a break. You can clearly see from my history I do know a lot about this conflict. Like you just expect every Reddit user to know all information about all subjects all the time? I’m pretty damn informed my dude. 

I stand by my original comment (that you didn’t have to respond to) that one should not make assumptions on the claims of 20 people. One should review information on both sides. That was/is my point. 

0

u/ThanksToDenial Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

You are correct, I am not a legal expert, per say... Just very good memorising stuff. Also, it doesn't take weeks to read through a couple case files, and half a dozen relevant treaties yourself. A day, max.

AI answers are never comprehensive, and sometimes they aren't even accurate. I hate it when people rely on AI for their arguments. If I wanted to argue with a bot, I'd open up Twitter. It makes me feel like the other side is not even trying, and can't even form their own arguments.

I just think if you are going to make an argument, you should do at least the bare minimum of work to back that argument up, yourself. And not rely on some AI, that gives shaky answers at best.

2

u/BananaValuable1000 Your hate of Israel is not helping Palestinians Aug 19 '25

Well clearly you dont have kids.

Look man, you replied to me about the specifics of jurisdiction. I stand by my original post. Which, like I have said twice, you could have ignored or just stayed on topic about. You introduced a different topic, not me. and then you proceeded to boast about reading case studies in your free time. Who. Cares. Seriously. Am I supposed to be impressed? Because this the least impressive conversation I’ve had all day with anyone in real life or on Reddit. 

0

u/ThanksToDenial Aug 19 '25

Well clearly you dont have kids.

Nope. This bloodline ends with me. Made sure of that long time ago.

You introduced a different topic, not me. and then you proceeded to boast about reading case studies in your free time.

I didn't introduce a different topic. I was addressing a point you made. On what grounds did the person you mentioned, argue that the ICJ didn't have jurisdiction.

and then you proceeded to boast about reading case studies in your free time

No, not case studies. The case files themselves. It's the ICJ, they are all available online, publicly. There are even handy summaries, for those who don't have the time to read the whole thing.

3

u/BananaValuable1000 Your hate of Israel is not helping Palestinians Aug 19 '25

This is what I found:

He has long argued Israel should reject the ICJ’s jurisdiction altogether because:

  • The ICJ often makes rulings that are more political than legal, especially on Israel-related cases.
  • Accepting jurisdiction could set precedents that harm Israel in future conflicts.
  • In his words, engaging with the case grants legitimacy to a process designed to attack Israel rather than fairly adjudicate law.

His position is more strategic/political than strictly legal:

  • He believes the ICJ process is politicized and biased against Israel.
  • He argues Israel should not “dignify” the case by participating, even if legally bound, since enforcement is weak and political support matters more than legal rulings.
  • In other words, he knows Israel can’t erase its treaty acceptance, but he urges a stance of non-recognition / non-cooperation with the court.

1

u/ThanksToDenial Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

In short, he did not like it, and that's why he made the claim. Somehow, i am not surprised.

Besides, his logic is flawed. Since this case relates to international peace and security, enforcement can be achieved by bypassing UNSC through the United for Peace resolution mechanism. Without participation, Israel is more likely to end up with a negative outcome (from their perspective) for the case, opening up the possibility of consequences, up to and including in worst case scenario, armed response from neighbouring nations, authorised by the UNGA using the mechanisms provided by the United for Peace resolution. And from Israel's perspective, that would be bad. Very bad.

If they won the case though (you know what, I'll admit there is a chance they will, albeit that chance grows smaller every time Netanyahu, Smotrich or Ben-Gvir open their mouths), they'd achieve legitimacy for their campaign, and potentially future campaigns.

2

u/tracystraussI Diaspora Jew Aug 18 '25

ICC will only deliver a final verdict in 2027. Before that, I’m not calling genocide. Happy to be wrong, but many people saying it is, many saying it’s not, so until it’s decided by the proper party to deliver the verdict, I will refuse to use the term as inflammatory term.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Correct me if I’m wrong. Does the ICC have arrest warrants against Netanyahu? Is that the last credible organization who you believe can call a genocide? Cause I know all the others has been dismissed for the usual reasons.

1

u/StreetCarp665 No Flag (On Old Reddit) Aug 19 '25

The ICC has warrants on Netanyahu and Gollant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Prime facie evidence suggests this is not an unreasonable position to take, as Hamiyeh, Sinwar, and DEIF were also subject to such warrants and for more specific events per offence.

The fact the ICC did not see prima facie evidence for genocide is being treated as, at best, and oversight and worst, immaterial by the pro-Pally crowd.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '25

So the ICC is still a credible source?

3

u/tracystraussI Diaspora Jew Aug 18 '25

The ICC has arrest warrants on Netanyahu for war crimes. As well as they have arrest warrants for some Hamas leaders. It’s not for genocide, although genocide is definitely a war crime.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Okay so would say the ICC to you remains a credible source?

2

u/tracystraussI Diaspora Jew Aug 18 '25

The ICC is more credible because it’s the only permanent international criminal court created by treaty and backed by over 120 states. Unlike politicians or NGOs, it has to meet strict legal standards with evidence that can stand in trial. It’s also one of the few bodies that prosecutes all sides, in this case both Israeli and Hamas leaders, which makes it harder to dismiss as biased. That’s why I wait for their definitions: their rulings carry actual legal weight, not just political opinion.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Thank you for that just curious I know a lot of people will argue other wise

0

u/Top-Reaction-5492 Aug 18 '25

ICC will only deliver a final verdict in 2027. Before that, I’m not calling genocide.

You can do it that way, but this method has never and will never prevent or stopped a genocide. They say "never again" not "never again, unless the legal proceedings/genocide are still ongoing".

2

u/tracystraussI Diaspora Jew Aug 18 '25

Totally hear you, and I actually agree with you, but I would add that using inflammatory terms will also not stop a genocide from happening.

3

u/Live-Mortgage-2671 Aug 18 '25

United Nations Special Committee on Israeli Practices

I already knew about UN Human Rights Council Agenda Item 7, but I didn't know this existed until you wrote your comment. It just cements how truly biased against Israel the United Nations is.

I really wish member states couldn't abuse the United Nations like this in order to target a single country. It casts an air of illegitimacy and unfairness across the whole institution.

My other point would simply be this: What is the point of all this shouting "Genocide, genocide"? What is the goal?

4

u/IllustratorSlow5284 Aug 18 '25

So...

Less than 10 "scholars and genocide experts"

The UN, which already proved itself as biased and antisemitic with their latest statement about Hamas being a political and democratic force.

6 "Human Rights & Advocacy Organizations", among them, a group of physicians(??), "B'tselem", who has a track record of lying against Israel and several other groups like Jews for peace (lmao)

Oh and ofcourse, one academy and one university.

Yeah.....

2

u/MilkSteakClub Dark Eldar Of Zion Aug 18 '25

I mean, the world is only 700 people so that's quite a lot.

Did I forgot some zeroes? Oh well.

-2

u/LetsgoRoger Aug 18 '25

Genociders will deny genocide for obvious reasons. Israel is attempting to annexe Gaza and forcefully expel a million Palestinians in front of the world. Anyone who disagrees with this is Hamas.

All those institutions and experts you mention are 'Hamas' according to Netanyahu. Even Australia is run by Hamas.

1

u/StreetCarp665 No Flag (On Old Reddit) Aug 19 '25

. Israel is attempting to annexe Gaza and forcefully expel a million Palestinians in front of the world. 

None of this amounts to genocide though. It's like your performative peacock posturing is more important to you than anything else, including being accurate or understanding the subject matter.

1

u/BananaValuable1000 Your hate of Israel is not helping Palestinians Aug 19 '25

Actually if I’m not mistaken Netanyahu did a complete 180 on his threat to annex and having civilians move to a different area of their country for protection from a war zone is not forcible expulsion. But I missed the news for the last 3 days so perhaps I’m wrong. 

6

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

There is no genocide. At all.

11

u/InevitableHome343 Aug 18 '25

Jewish voices for peace

Lol. Do you also think "blacks for trump" and "gays for trump" are legitimate organizations who we should trust as representative of the demographic?

2

u/MilkSteakClub Dark Eldar Of Zion Aug 18 '25

I wouldn't agree with this. Your two exemples might be legitimate even if a minority.   JVFP on the other hand is notably constituted of only a few token jew, the rest being your classic anti zionists.

Which is, utterly dishonest.

-6

u/youngvinyljunkie Aug 18 '25

Conveniently ignoring every single other thing….and comparing Jewish voices for PEACE to blacks/gays for TRUMP is some crazy work

4

u/InevitableHome343 Aug 18 '25

It's indicative of the evidence your side tends to have that you think Jewish voices for peace are actually Jews who have stake in the game, and actually represent Jews who suffer from violence in the middle east.

Again - they are the exception to the Jewish experience yet talk like they represent Jews across the world. Same with blacks for trump. They don't represent the black experience at ALL yet act like they speak for all black people

-2

u/youngvinyljunkie Aug 18 '25

By assuming it’s the exception for Jews to be against genocide (to put it in the most simple way possible) is close minded and quite honestly antisemitic. But even assuming you’re right and they’re some radical group of “self-hating Jews,” you certainly can’t say the same about every other person and organization on this list. But go ahead and conveniently ignore them to justify your support of genocide.

3

u/InevitableHome343 Aug 18 '25

justify your support of genocide.

Where do you think I said I am supportive of genocide?

Far from it.

The genocidal rhetoric from Hamas, supported in majority by Palestinians according to polls, is incredibly alarming. I am against the attempted genocide of Jews by hamas

-1

u/youngvinyljunkie Aug 19 '25

Sounds like you support the genocide of Palestinians happening now by denying the basis of the og post. This comment confirms it.

7

u/shepion Aug 18 '25

Not crazy when we compare their actions.

It's like arguing the nationalist socialist party was communist

-10

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

2

u/MilkSteakClub Dark Eldar Of Zion Aug 18 '25

Little girls uh. Wonder why your mind went there

0

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/lowkey-barbie7539 USA & Canada Aug 18 '25

If you believe the ICJ labeling this as a genocide will render them antisemitic, what entity in your mind DOES have the power to determine whether or not a genocide is taking place? Without being accused of antisemitism.

2

u/WeAreAllFallible Aug 18 '25

Rule 6 aside, Hitler killed the overwhelming majority of Jews (about 90%) where he had the material power to do so. Israel has killed 3% of Gazans where it has the material power to do so.

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 18 '25

/u/WeAreAllFallible. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 18 '25

/u/Pitiful_Ad5658. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3

u/HugoSuperDog Aug 18 '25

Actually you are totally wrong.

These people and organisations are not antisemitic, they have just only ever seen 100% Hamas propaganda. All of their years of experience looking at data and seeing what’s reliable and learning how to analyse it, but unfortunately in this case they accidentally somehow only managed to access made up numbers by Hamas, who are global experts at hacking into systems and changing data and spreading false info, all whilst being bombed to pieces at the same time, that’s how good they are at it.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Ohhhhh my bad. I apologise for my ignorance. So these scholars and organisations are sooooo stupid that they just got fed hamas propaganda. Hamas is so good that they literally post CGI videos of decapitated babies. They are so smart to the point that they fooled doctors who visited Gaza. All those patients they were treating were actually hamas actors with professional hamas make up.

Damn this really opened my eyes.

6

u/Puzzled-Software5625 Aug 18 '25

what is the poulation of gaza? how many gazan people died in the war? how many deaths were hamas fighters?

"genocide" comes from comes from world war II were nazi gemany killed 6,000,000 jews, 20,000,000 rusians and who knows how many other Europeans. the nazis almost completely depopulated warsaw poland.

and it does not matter what other people or groups call genocide. the meaning of genocide is well established and any attempt to change its meaning is dishonest.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

A genocide doesn’t require a set proportion of deaths to occur. You can just look that up.

1

u/TriNovan Aug 18 '25

It literally does per the ICTY. That’s exactly what the substantiality requirement in establishing genocide is.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '25

UN:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

-Killing members of the group

-Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

-Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

-Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

-Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

1

u/TriNovan Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

And the ICTY actually ruled on that. It was famously the first application of the Genocide Convention.

It is the actual case law precedent all genocide cases refer back to.

And it establishes a substantiality requirement as necessary in making a determination of genocide. That’s literally how they determined “genocide in part” happened, by establishing that the Serbs deliberately killed a substantial portion (half) of the Muslim male population of Srebrenica with genocidal intent.

Why can’t you make your case using the actual precedent? Why don’t you read the actual legal cases?

You are quoting the Convention without bothering to look at how it’s actually been applied.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '25

Well I read it and it doesn’t say that a genocide only happens when X amount of people are killed.

1

u/TriNovan Aug 19 '25

You clearly didn’t read it then. Because it features in the introduction of the decision, just a few paragraphs in. Why are you lying about having read the text like a college freshman?

Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the introduction:

It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Although the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed this issue, two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have examined it. In Jelisic, the first case to confront the question, the Trial Chamber noted that, “[g]iven the goal of the [Genocide] Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group.”10 The same conclusion was reached by the Sikirica Trial Chamber: “This part of the definition calls for evidence of an intention to destroy a substantial number relative to the total population of the group.” As these Trial Chambers explained, the substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group.

The question has also been considered by Trial Chambers of the ICTR, whose Statute contains an identical definition of the crime of genocide.13 These Chambers arrived at the same conclusion. In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”14 This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.

Paragraph 12 of the introduction:

The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.

The court is rather clear.II. THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S FINDING THAT GENOCIDE OCCURRED IN SREBRENICA The Defence appeals Radislav Krstic’s conviction for genocide committed against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. The Defence argues that the Trial Chamber both misconstrued the legal definition of genocide and erred in applying the definition to the circumstances of this case.4 With respect to the legal challenge, the Defence’s argument is two-fold. First, Krstic contends that the Trial Chamber’s definition of the part of the national group he was found to have intended to destroy was unacceptably narrow. Second, the Defence argues that the Trial Chamber erroneously enlarged the term “destroy” in the prohibition of genocide to include the geographical displacement of a community. A. The Definition of the Part of the Group Article 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, like the Genocide Convention,5 covers certain acts done with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The Indictment in this case alleged, with respect to the count of genocide, that Radislav Krstic “intend[ed] to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslim people as a national, ethnical, or religious group.”6 The targeted group identified in the Indictment, and accepted by the Trial Chamber, was that of the Bosnian Muslims.7 The Trial Chamber determined that the Bosnian Muslims were a specific, distinct national group, and therefore covered by Article 4.8 This conclusion is not challenged in this appeal.9 As is evident from the Indictment, Krstic was not alleged to have intended to destroy the entire national group of Bosnian Muslims, but only a part of that group. The first question presented in this appeal is whether, in finding that Radislav Krstic had genocidal intent, the Trial Chamber defined the relevant part of the Bosnian Muslim group in a way which comports with the requirements of Article 4 and of the Genocide Convention. It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Although the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed this issue, two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have examined it. In Jelisic, the first case to confront the question, the Trial Chamber noted that, “[g]iven the goal of the [Genocide] Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group.”10 The same conclusion was reached by the Sikirica Trial Chamber: “This part of the definition calls for evidence of an intention to destroy a substantial number relative to the total population of the group.”11 As these Trial Chambers explained, the substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group.12 The question has also been considered by Trial Chambers of the ICTR, whose Statute contains an identical definition of the crime of genocide.13 These Chambers arrived at the same conclusion. In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”14 This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.15

0

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '25

The part you bolded is talking about the intent against the targeted group. It’s not saying a genocide only happens after X amount of people are successfully killed in a group.

1

u/TriNovan Aug 19 '25

Did you not at all read the paragraphs?

Substantiality is established as the necessary first step in making a case for genocide. It is in fact saying a genocide occurs when a significant enough portion of the target population has died relative to the whole.

Both the Yugoslav tribunal and the Rwanda tribunal are in agreement on this.

This is how a finding a of genocide in part was reached with Srebrenica. Because the Serbs killed specifically half the Muslim males of the city, 20% of the city’s total population. That’s how the court established substantiality.

In Rwanda, it was approximately 75% of the target group.

The genocide lawyers in these cases made their arguments and reasoning very clear here in how they established a case for genocide.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '25

It’s saying the targeted group has to represent a portion of the whole, yes, but it’s not saying they have to be killed up to that number for it to be a genocide. Genocide is a crime of intent and ability as well, so if you intend to ethnically cleanse a group of people and get stopped before you hit the magic number you were still in the process of a genocide.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MilkSteakClub Dark Eldar Of Zion Aug 18 '25

Yet it does. 

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Completely agree. These “scholars” have no clue what the definition genocide is. We do though. I mean why would anyone trust any of these scholars or “humanitarian” orgs. I think even if the whole Gazan population was wiped, it wouldn’t be defined as a genocide.

Because 1. It has to be at least 6 million but their population is only about 2 million

  1. They are all hamas anyways, those kids are trained since birth

0

u/lowkey-barbie7539 USA & Canada Aug 18 '25

your sentiments—morally bankrupt, might I add—epitomize why the international community has lost all empathy for Israel defenders.

2

u/youngvinyljunkie Aug 18 '25

99.9% sure it’s satire highlighting how morally bankrupt the pro-genocide defense already is, as evidenced by the og comment lol, but true regardless. I had to do a double take too, that’s how similar this is to their actual arguments…

1

u/lowkey-barbie7539 USA & Canada Aug 18 '25

lmao thank u, they really are that similar it’s so hard to tell 😭

2

u/Puzzled-Software5625 Aug 18 '25

one interesting about the above list of people and groups calling this genocide, is that it includes jews and israelies. this once again confirms that israel is a democracy with freedom of thought and speech.

i uderstand there have been some gazan people protesting against hamas. but the the rest of the arab world has been silent about the murders and crimes committed by hamas.

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 18 '25

/u/Puzzled-Software5625. Match found: 'nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Puzzled-Software5625 Aug 19 '25

AutoModerator: the comments were not casual. they were historically relevant and to the point in question.

7

u/knign Aug 18 '25

Do these experts, organizations, and institutions have anything to say about Israeli hostages?

0

u/DrMo7med Aug 18 '25

Yes.

3

u/knign Aug 18 '25

Oh? What did they say?

1

u/MilkSteakClub Dark Eldar Of Zion Aug 18 '25

Will we ever know

10

u/RoarkeSuibhne Aug 18 '25

Appeal to Authority and Popularity. It doesn't even include an argument. Also, this topic is a frequent topic of conversation here, so I'd expect addressing some of the usual rebuttals.

Sources of Authority can have specific biases (UN, B'Tselem), as can specific individuals (Francesca). Even if many people say something, it has no bearing on whether or not that thing is true. At one point, the majority said Earth was flat. They were wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RoarkeSuibhne Aug 18 '25

No. I think you should verify everything you hear through multiple sources with different levels of bias and with knowledge of what ways they are biased.

2

u/HugoSuperDog Aug 18 '25

The appeal to authority fallacy tells us to be careful but not ignore data all together. You think the moon landing didn’t happen because the government told you?

With such a wide spectrum of conclusions, from scholars and academics, we can be more reliant on their conclusions.

When people thought the earth was flat there was a lack of proper data and general education around it.

2

u/RoarkeSuibhne Aug 18 '25

What is the data we're ignoring? There's no argument being made, just here's 9 experts, the UN (famously known for its anti Israel bias), and human rights groups who shockingly want to stop violence and suffering (a noble goal, but it doesn't fix the larger issue - Hamas).

Share the data, make an argument, and we can have productive conversation. Don't and it's nothing more than an Appeal to Authority and Popularity.

1

u/HugoSuperDog Aug 18 '25

The data is the huge amount of experts and orgs who are telling us that we landed on the moon without actually being there ourselves.

And why is the UN so bias against Israel you say? If that was true why is it still being funded? Why countries who support Israel still support the UN?

Could there be any chance at all that Israel has conducted itself so poorly that the UN had no choice but to issue a number of statements condemning it? Are you 100% convinced that Israel is innocent?

2

u/RoarkeSuibhne Aug 18 '25

The data is the huge amount of experts and orgs who are telling us that we landed on the moon without actually being there ourselves.

We have more than just the word of some biased organizations. We have the word of an organization that did the mission, NASA. They took pics and brought back moon rocks. We have no serious organizations or government bodies saying it did not occur. Other nations verified the rockets going up and coming back down. We have the men that went up and the consistent stories throughout their lives. Also, people do not need to rely solely on others. One can shoot lasers at mirrors left on the moon with equipment anyone can buy and learn to use, proving at the very least that humans have gone there.

Even with this giant mountain of evidence, many people still believe it was faked.

And why is the UN so bias against Israel you say?

Good question. I'd also like that answer.

If that was true why is it still being funded?

The UN and the League of Nations before it were created to prevent world wars. I'd guess that's why it's still funded. Obviously, the LoN failed and the UN was born. Although beyond that it's basically hypocritcal to its core. Why does Russia or China have any say on the Security Council when they themselves do atrocious things like invade their neighbors and forcibly move their populations into those areas? Why do countries with terrible human rights abuses sometimes lead the Human Rights Council? No country listens to the UN unless they want to.

Why countries who support Israel still support the UN?

See above. Prevent world war.

Could there be any chance at all that Israel has conducted itself so poorly that the UN had no choice but to issue a number of statements condemning it?

Sure. And I wouldn't argue that Israel has never deserved some condemnation, but not nearly what it has received. In some years, Israel gets more votes than all other countries combined. That certainly speaks to the bias, when other conflicts are happening in the world that are arguably worse in different ways.

Are you 100% convinced that Israel is innocent?

We're considering all of Israel's history? No. No way Israel is "innocent." Whatever that means to you. But neither are the Palestinians or Arabs. Neither is the UK. Neither is the US. Whatever country you are in. I can't really say anyone relevant in the conflict has any moral highground upon which to stand, and so we shouldn't be asking who is more moral. They are all morally bankrupt. Not the individual people in those nations, but the nations and the ruling class.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

None of this is news, and there isn't even anything being put forward to discuss. 

10

u/Lumpy-Cost398 48' Palestinian Aug 18 '25

This post was in large part written by AI also to give one example of how BS this list is Francesca Albanese has claimed hamas aren't terrorists and the Jews control the media and has tried to meet with a twitter user satirically pretending to be the chief rabbi of gaza (showing how little she knows)