> can we dismiss all statements from someone who is related to someone who worked for the Israeli government or was in the IDF too?
The point is that, as someone with limited stakes in this war and limited exposure to its history until recently, unbiased sources have been hard to come by. The entire definition of genocide has been politicised. That isn't a criticism of anyone doing it--language is a powerful tool, and it's fair game to try and bend definitions to one's advantage. But all that makes piercing the veil on whether this is the horribleness of war being selectively cited, or a selectively horrible war, tough.
This report cuts through that. The evidence is compelling, albeit less primary than I'd have hoped. The writing is clear and impartial. (Though again, a lot of secondary sourcing.) It doesn't seek to answer who is at fault for what is, essentially, an intractable multigenerational conflict (even before we involve proxies). It just seeks to simply answer a question, and in my opinion, having now skimmed (but not deeply contemplated) it, it does.
The balance of evidence suggests Israel is prosecuting a genocide against the people of Palestine. That creates legitimacy for escalating a regional conflict (one among money, I may add, and nowhere close to the deadliest) into an international peacekeeping operation.
Unfortunately, all of this rests on a system of international law that basically all the great powers of this generation (China, then Russia, and now America and India) have undermined.
Just like those international peace keepers abetted Hezbollah, providing them intel and cover, even illuminating our assets via spotlights for Hezbollah?
Or just like those international peacekeepers who filmed Hezbollah breach our border, kill soldiers, abduct others? And then when this was discovered, refused to share the unedited video with Israel?
We don't trust the UN. So which international peace keepers do you propose?
> Ooh, can we dismiss all statements from someone who is related to someone who worked for the Israeli government or was in the IDF too?
Isn't that exactly what is done? I've been accused of being impartial and biased many times right here on HN due to being Israeli. Should we not also acknowledge her impartiality and bias?
I'm uninsterested in your credibility or opinion on wether or not it's a genocide.
Courts have ruled it is. The world has ruled it is. You can skirm all you want, in 6 months you'll say you always thought it was a genocide. Mark my words.
They have - not in a final ruling, but in mutliple rulings adjacent, provisional measures for example. Feel free to read what the courtd have made public for all to see
Haven't they recognised that the rights of Palestinians to be protected from genocide has plausibly been infringed upon? Which is what was said in that excerpt? Edit1: I'm specifically referring to all decisions regarding provisional measures
Edit0:Rulings are not only the final decision, feel free to chat with a lawyer
What more do you need? Indeed, there hasn't been a final ruling yet. What a gotcha!
Edit1: Also, please understand that the distinction you are pointing to is just saying :
1. Palestinians seemingly are being genocided
2. Israel has a responsibility not to ebact acts of genocide on the palestinians
3. Israel keeps failing at this goal and has even has it's leaders express genocidal intent.
Which is to say everything BUT the final ruling - that Israel has committed genocide - as final ruling can't be arrived to expeditedly even in the face of overwhelming evidence
The ones who made that statement which you object to, were the judges on the case brought forward by the South Africans. It was not Israel nor anybody representing Israel.
Wait, you know people who were killed by Hamas? You can’t even pretend to be impartial.