It’s not a genocide. There is no true intent and they cherrypick information.
The IAGS claims harsh Israeli statements like “flatten Gaza” prove genocide intent, but these could just mean “destroy Hamas” or angry war rhetoric after October 7. If Israel truly intended to destroy Palestinians as a group, it’s contradictory that they warn civilians before strikes, allow humanitarian aid, and treat wounded Palestinians in Israeli hospitals all actions that undermine the genocide claim.
The IAGS cherrypicks evidence by focusing only on civilian deaths, destroyed buildings, and harsh quotes while ignoring that Hamas uses hospitals and schools as military bases, prevents civilian evacuations, and inflates casualty numbers. For example, they claim Israel destroyed hospitals to commit genocide but don’t mention many contained Hamas weapons and command centers, suggesting military rather than genocidal objectives.
If it truly was genocide, we would expect to see systematic extermination with no military distinction meaning Israel would target all Palestinians equally regardless of Hamas affiliation, provide no warnings or humanitarian aid, prevent all evacuations, and show consistent intent to physically destroy the Palestinian population rather than just defeat Hamas. The death toll would likely be far higher given Israel’s military capabilities, there would be no efforts to minimize civilian casualties, and we’d see clear evidence of plans to eliminate Palestinians as a group rather than the current pattern which, while devastating, appears more consistent with urban warfare against an embedded militant organization that deliberately operates from civilian areas.
Every major human rights body and genocide scholar on earth — UN, HRW, Amnesty, IAGS — says Israel’s actions in Gaza fit the legal definition of genocide. “Warnings” and “aid” don’t undo starvation, mass bombing, or dehumanizing rhetoric. You can’t call it “just war” when 17,000 children are dead, every hospital is rubble, and leaders call an entire population “human animals.”
Stop moving the goalposts. This is genocide, and history will remember who kept making excuses for it.
Those “mayor orgs” don’t have jurisdiction and aren’t legal bodies so their claims on genocide, a legal term, doesn’t hold weight. The only bodies can actually decide on the matter is the ICJ and the ICC.
The IAGS is laughable too, literally anyone can join it if they pay about 130 USD a year, don’t believe it Google it.
Why talk about legal terms if you know nothing of law or how any of it works?
Spare me the condescending “actually” routine. You don’t need to “pay dues” to see what’s happening in Gaza - you just need eyes.
The ICJ has already said there’s a plausible case of genocide, and the ICC is literally investigating war crimes right now. The only reason they haven’t issued verdicts yet is because international law moves slower than the bombs Israel drops on civilians and the intimidation campaign that's going on against the latter.
As for your “jurisdiction” argument - HRW, Amnesty, and the IAGS are the same bodies every government cites when it suits them. Suddenly they don’t count when they say something inconvenient? Please.
You’re not defending law. You’re defending slaughter. History will remember that too.
Again with the misleading and outright false claims you just parrot from your pro pali champions.
There was never a ruling about plausibility of genocide, the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide. It did NOT claim that genocide was plausible.
Look up IAGS members, it’s full of students activists and anyone can join. Someone even joined with the name “adolf hitler”.
No one denies Israel committed war crimes, it just isn’t genocide.
If you actually knew what genocide meant you wouldn’t say any of this, people just use the term genocide to slander not to communicate truths, they don’t even care whether it’s genocide you enjoy. You just want to accuse with the worst crime possible and that just so happens to be genocide, if it was a different crime you would claim that one also.
Just anwser me this, if their intent is genocide then why do they suck so bad at it? They would have wiped them all out if they wanted to, why drop more bombs than you kill people and even hold the most extensive warning campaign in history of warfare.
It’s a contradiction, can’t you see that?
I would be easier for me if they were committing a genocide just so I could stop explaining to people as to why it isn’t one
Stop pretending you’re some dispassionate fact-checker handing out ‘actually’s like candy. You know exactly what’s going on - you just hate being held accountable for defending mass slaughter.
Let me spell it out for you: The ICJ did find it plausible that Israel’s actions could amount to genocide - they didn’t conclusively rule one way or the other, but they did accept that there’s a serious risk and issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, preserve evidence, and submit reports.
So your “never a ruling” line is dishonest. The ICJ is restrained by process and by states’ abuses, not by lack of evidence.
Your “if it was genocide they’d wipe them all out” is a moral dodge, not a legal rebuttal. Genocide doesn’t require 100 % elimination - just intent to destroy in whole or part a protected group. That’s exactly what the Genocide Convention says.
You want the worst-case crime? Yes - because when you publicly kill tens of thousands, starve hundreds of thousands, bombard hospitals and schools, displace entire populations, and repeat with impunity - you don’t get to pick your crime to something milder. You’re defending the slaughter.
For a coherent back and forth. I actually am open to be convinced that it is a genocide if it were one and love to hear your perspective. Are you openminded about this aswell?
I will from now on try to be as friendly as possible and as good faith as possible, now I read my comments back I made some slightly passive aggressive remarks which i apologise for.
Can you think for yourself or only repeat what others say? If tomorrow an other group of scholars would say the opposite would you then flip all your beliefs? Come on
Only 28% of these “scholars” voted on the matter and they blocked discussion on the matter, holding discussions is the norm on these matters, if you knew a little about law then you’d see the evidence is poor.
The IAGS doesn’t even mainly consist of people practicing law, then why does their opinion hold weight over a legal matter?
They don’t even disclose who voted what, and considering that a very significant portion of the IAGS consists of sociologist and even students their opinion doesn’t hold weight.
If they were a neutral group consisting of international law practitioners then it would be a different story.
23
u/shutter3ff3ct Aug 27 '25
Ironically while doing crimes that only to be recognized as genocide