TheLibrarianSaysOok

[Dr. Eli David @DrEliDavid]

UN 🇺🇳 logic:
1. Before the war, there were 625,000 school children in Gaza 👇
2. Israel committed a genocide during the war
3. After the war, there are now 660,000 school children in Gaza 👇

Israel is the most incompetent genocider in history.

Credit: @HuntersOfNazis

[Terrible Maps @TerribleMaps]

Alaska's passive-aggressive map of the USA

[𝔼𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕥 𝕄𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕟 @ElliotMalin]

Oh, so you don't know what you're talking about, got it. Let me help you!

Genocide as a crime requires a specific intent. This means that the party accused of genocide must intend the destruction of a protected group of people ("any of the acts with the INTENT TO DESTROY, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, AS SUCH..."). This is known as "dolus specialis" and is incredibly difficult to prove. Basically, the finding of genocide is precluded unless you can prove, fully conclusively (akin to beyond a reasonable doubt), that the party has the intent to commit genocide.

Without a doubt, Palestinians are a distinct national group and are the Genocide Convention protects them. By the way, you provided the Rome Statute which draws from the Genocide Convention (1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).

So, we know that Palestinians are protected (which, by the way, is what the ICJ said when they determined plausibility correctly).

Now, you must demonstrate that Israel's goal is to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, because of their membership in the group. The target is the group, not the individual. To do that you must demonstrate that it is the only reasonable explanation to the conduct of the state. This is known as the only reasonable inference test.

See: Bosnia v. Serbia (2007), para. 373: “The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly demonstrated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be that it could only point (emphasis added) to the existence of such intent.”

See also: Prosecutor v. Tolimir (2012): "Indications of such intent are rarely overt, however, and thus it is permissible to infer the existence of genocidal intent based on “all of the evidence, taken together”, as long as this inference is “the only reasonable [one] available on the evidence” (emphasis added)."

Further, you must demonstrate substantiality. Substantiality requires that the intended destruction be so substantial that it threatens the very existence of the group within the geographic area. To do this requires understanding the portion destroyed compared to the whole population in the geographic area and under the control of the accused party.

See: Prosecutor v. Krstić (2004) para. 8: "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 (emphasis added). 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 Jelisić, 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.” 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 (emphasis added)."

See also: ibid. para. 10: "This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term “in part” contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that “the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety.” (emphasis added) He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that “the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale.” Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group. In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that “the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group,” this formulation being the aim of the Convention."

See also: ibid. para. 12: "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 (emphasis added). 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."

See also: Prosecutor v. Sikirica (2001) para. 72: "For the purpose of determining the number of victims within the terms of Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c), one is, therefore, left with a number of approximately 1000-1400 Muslims out of a total of 49,351 in the Prijedor municipality. This would represent between 2% and 2.8% of the Muslims in the Prijedor municipality and would hardly qualify as a “reasonably substantial” part of the Bosnian Muslim group in Prijedor (emphasis added). It also needs to be borne in mind that not all the detainees at Keraterm were Muslims."

So, to do the analysis requires us to first ascertain if there are any other reasonable inferences that can be drawn in Gaza. This requires analyzing the conduct of both parties and why the destruction is what it is. It also requires placing into context all statements and actions to better understand the intent of the party committing the attack.

We know that Hamas has utilized human shielding for decades, Palestinians have also repeatedly told us this, and it is a crime under the Rome Statute. It will necessarily increase incidental harm in warfare because there is law on point that does not immunize areas where human shielding is occurring. See: GC IV 28 & API 51(7). Here's a relevant article on this: https://t.co/C1KcfV7gVM (you should see who the lawyer is here).

Further, we know that Hamas has utilized healthcare facilities to conduct combat operations from, also removing the protections from those facilities. See: GC IV 19. Mohammed Sinwar was killed under the European hospital, Palestinians also told us repeatedly that Hamas was present in these facilities.

Putting those facts together with substantive weaponization of subterranean zones within civilian areas also poses another problem under the law. This permits combat against such facilities. Here's a TIME article from a Palestinian telling us this: https://t.co/LFvSqdgpNW.

We also know that Hamas had been firing and fighting from the humanitarian zone. (https://t.co/bDMWPtVxHe).

This starts to paint reasonable alternative explanations other than genocide for the conduct of Israel and its combat operations. If just one alternative explanation exists, it cannot be found to be genocide. (See: Bosnia v. Serbia & Tolimir, above).

Next, we must discuss the substantiality requirement. This number must be so high to threaten the groups very existence. The pre-war population of Gaza was estimated at 2,230,000. The death toll in Gaza is about 73,000. Included in this is about 25,000 combatants. For the purpose of our analysis we will ignore this fact.

73,000/2,230,000=0.0327 (3.27% of the pre-war population has reportedly been killed).

Similar to the Sikirica decision, this number constitutes about 3% of the population. In Sikirica they found that to be too small to constitute a substantial portion of the population.

Now, let's remove the known combatants from the death toll: 73,000-25,000=48,000

48,000/2,230,000=0.021 (2.1% of the pre-war civilian population has been reportedly killed). This is even smaller than the amount found in Sikirica.

All of this ignores the existence of live births in Gaza which we know were about 50,000 in the first 6 months of the war and remained at an average of 4,000-5,500/month throughout the war. This provides us with a range of 120,000-165,000 new lives in Gaza. Which provides us another range of 47,000-92,000 in net gain of population in Gaza.

This cannot constitute genocide because the group itself is not at risk of destruction, and the intent cannot be proven to a fully conclusive standard as required.

You can reasonably be upset by Israeli conduct in the war in Gaza without bastardizing a word you clearly do not know what it actually means. You can oppose the war, even, and not do that. Genocide has a very specific meaning, and if you water it down it loses the protections meant for everyone, including Palestinians.

And by the way, for reference, I'm the lawyer in the case cited above on behalf of a Palestinian victim. The reason I asked you the questions was because words have meaning, they are not driven by emotion. Here, they are driven by facts and a complex analysis.

I won't be having a tribunal, but I am working to bring justice to actual victims of genocide and crimes against humanity. So much so that I know my way around The Hague.

[𝔼𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕥 𝕄𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕟 @ElliotMalin]

“Something that was obvious in 2023.”

This is false. And the ICC even rejected warrants for Israeli leaders for the crime against humanity of extermination.

It’s not obvious, but the way, because it’s not obvious the elements are present which is why every accusation has required changing the legal elements to a shifting mens rea standard.

Just ask Amnesty who admitted in their report that the jurisprudence would preclude a finding of genocide.

[TheLibrarianSaysOok @Librarianook83]

Or older than 1994 (when the PA was formed) or older than 1964 (when the PLO was founded) or even older than 1920 (when the Mandate was founded, if you wanted to beat the Zionists so bad you’re willing to claim a British colony as your definition of “ Palestine”)

[TheLibrarianSaysOok @Librarianook83]

People who claim “x is older than Israel” for something older than 1948 or whatever would probably get real mad if you described “x is older than Palestine” because no such state currently exists

[Josh @_j0sh_a_]

Things that are older than Israel? 🤔

[Joo @JoosyJew]

I’ve got a really gorgeous girlfriend but you wouldn’t know her. She lives in Canada. I met her at Niagara Falls. You definitely wouldn't know her.

[Amelia Adams @neuroticjewgay]

JVP’s political director admits that she thinks Israel was wrong to kill the modern day Einsatzgruppen.

[Emily Schrader - אמילי שריידר امیلی شریدر @emilykschrader]

All the Hezbollah fan girls are crying today which means the agreement between Israel and Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah terrorists is a good one. 👌🏼

[Shoshanna Keats Jaskoll @skjask]

On the one hand, I understand why people believe Israel is evil as former trustworthy institutions and media outlets are infected with lies & libel - on the other hand it's difficult to forgive people for not asking questions or digging deeper into the insane things Israel is accused of.

[Eylon Levy @EylonALevy]

The mask is really coming off, as far-left, pro-IRGC lunatics reveal they want others to keep fighting their forever wars instead of pursuing peace. The peoples of Israel and Lebanon have had enough of your wars.

[𝔼𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕥 𝕄𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕟 @ElliotMalin]

Ahhh yes, arsonist upset about fire they started.

[Kareem Rifai 🌐 @KareemRifai]

Uh, I can think of one more group.

[Hillel Neuer @HillelNeuer]

.@UNSRVAW In your press conf, you made excuses for your silence on Israeli women victims, e.g.: “We cannot rely on media statements.”

Yet you just relied on a media statement put out by the Hamas flotilla—without you ever having made any investigation. https://t.co/bWv65ULKW0

[Hen Mazzig @HenMazzig]

This is atrocious.

They’re bullying a gay Jewish man in San Francisco because I was at his cafe in 2019.

I spent years working with Palestinian civilians on developing humanitarian projects and providing them with humanitarian aid.

Let me tell you something. I never killed or physically harmed anyone during my service. That wasn't my job. I spent day in and day out trying to build bridges between Israelis and Palestinian civilians.

If you think for a single second that I should be ashamed of my service, you are out of your mind.

Helping a gay man escape his homophobic family and move to Israel is not something I am ashamed of.

Working with Palestinian families is not something I'm ashamed of.

Holding the hand of a little boy who was blown up by a Hamas trap is not something I'm ashamed of.

You are the ones who should be ashamed.

[Mat Nuclear @MatNuclear]

Israel made peace with Egypt in 1979, and hasn’t attacked it since.

Israel made peace with Jordan in 1994, and hasn’t attacked it since.

Saudi Arabia never attacked Israel, and Israel hasn’t attacked Saudi.

Maybe Israel just defends itself against enemy belligerents.

[Hussain Abdul-Hussain @hahussain]

Amazing how Israel's haters shout day and night for Palestinian self-determination and by the same breath shout against Lebanese self-determination demanding Lebanon be tied to Iran.
They're not ethical. They're not moral. They only have an axe to grind with the Jewish state.

[Hen Mazzig @HenMazzig]

You spent three paragraphs on how brave this is. How it’ll cost you. How the algorithm and “the defenders of Jewish Federation” are coming for a coffee shop in Portland. Read that back. You’re telling your followers that Jewish money is “blood money,” and that Jews are powerful enough to cancel a small business for defying them. That isn’t courage. It’s the oldest script there is, and you’re running it for applause.

And it is for applause. This is the most liked and shared thing you’ve ever posted. You told everyone it would cost you, and instead it became the best day your page has ever had. The Jewish Federation is the most mainstream Jewish organization in the US, and a major funder of refugee resettlement in it. You wrote that Heretic will “ALWAYS be a home for immigrants, refugees, and the displaced.” Then you tore up their check.

Rejecting the Federation isn’t a risk. Right now, it’s the most rewarded move a small business can make. You didn’t put anything on the line. You found the safest, loudest option available and called it sacrifice. Come on, Josh. You know what this gets you. Antisemitism is just good business. Just say it.

P.S. Nobody was coming back for the coffee. It tastes like puddle water. The moral grandstanding is the only thing on the menu with any kick.