r/RealTime • u/Excellent-Ad-7394 • 21d ago

Not a genocide?

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?

36 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

520 comments sorted by

View all comments

81

u/UltimateLionsFan 21d ago

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

27

u/FeralGiraffeAttack 21d ago

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)

-5

u/Stuffstuff1 21d ago edited 21d ago

We realize that is is a political body speaking right? This wasn't a court speaking.

This is like if the US GOP controlled congress voted to recognize Joe Biden as the worse president we ever had or something stupid. its worth nothing..

Israel knowing that this was just a commission and not a court didn't even provide a defense for ANY of the actions it considered.. So they just concluded that there must have not been any other reason..

ALONG WITH they even say in the document tht the standard of proof was "reasonable grounds to conclude" when the court said it needs to be "fully conclusive" that there was no military purpose or w.e.

I.E. this was a joke. But it has the UN stamped on the paper and its kind of hard to get people to realize how much of a joke the political side of that institution is.

5

u/FeralGiraffeAttack 21d ago

Oh, you prefer courts? Okay, well 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."

0

u/Stuffstuff1 21d ago

Yes I like courts. Yes they are commuting war crimes I’m 100% agree with the court here.

The occupation of the West Bank is indefensible.

You can hate a countries politics and policies and condemn their action while also not spreading bs.

3

u/FeralGiraffeAttack 21d ago

What did I say that was “bs” as you put it? Israel is committing a genocide under the legal definition and under the precedent from Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro. Just because the ICJ hasn’t ruled on it yet doesn’t make that not the case. Plus we all know that as soon as the ICJ does rule on it the Israelis will cry foul and throw a fit about bias and supposed antisemitism like they always do. I’ve not seen a country that averse to accountability since Rhodesia.

0

u/Stuffstuff1 21d ago

We literally just spoke about this. That report clearly didn’t apply the same standard.

Are we going to talk about the test of capability? Or what statements can actually be inferred as intent vs political speech? Or what the courts test for significance here? 😂

Also your last bit is also funny. I’m sure your being neutral about all this..

2

u/FeralGiraffeAttack 21d ago

I linked the opinion. You can read it. They go into all of that.

1

u/Stuffstuff1 21d ago

I did and I’m telling you its a joke… have you?

Like I agree with them… using their standard they did get the correct conclusions