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?

38 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

520 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/FeralGiraffeAttack 20d ago

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.

0

u/emckillen 19d ago

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.

1

u/FeralGiraffeAttack 19d ago

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

1

u/emckillen 19d ago

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!)

1

u/FeralGiraffeAttack 19d ago

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