Think about it . . .

Facts matter. Real history matters. I’m sick of Pro-Palestine lies. Tired of Woke nonsense. The West is worth defending. Be kind but don't be weak. 🇦🇺🇮🇱

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@BasilTheGreat They need to put a broom through the entire police force starting with Mark Rowley.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@elderofziyon Yep, meteorite - Israelite - join the dots . . . (Candace/Tucker logic!)

[Russ Roberts @EconTalker]

Destroying buildings is not genocide. Warning people that you’re going to destroy their buildings before you do, is definitely not genocide. Stopping the war when we got our hostages back shows it never was genocide. Targeting and taking out people who murdered, raped and abducted our fellow citizens is justice, not “ongoing” genocide. The famine that never happened is not genocide. Taking quotes out of context does not prove genocide. And for all of you who continue to lie about this and treat it like it’s just a simple fact like the color of the sky? You are justifying the harming and killing of Israelis and Jews. You’ve chosen the wrong side.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@marklevinshow Most of them can't agree what a woman is.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@Chesschick01 And are too dumb to realise it.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@marklevinshow Please, make this the last time on this merry-go-round. It's time to finish them!

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@MirabelleW18 Smug and stupid.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@EylonALevy I think she'd pretty much proved he case for the affirmative at that point.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@EYakoby OMG no. For God's sake, we've been here. When are they going to learn the IRGC won't keep its promises.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@VividProwess No, Cenk is worse than an idiot, he's a cunning disinformation agent spreading lies and propaganda.

[leekern @leekern13]

This is life under Islam

It is a terrorist, bullying, fascist ideology that uses violence or the threat of violence in order to achieve subjugation and compliance

There is no “golden age” or freedom under Islam

And for the idiots: Islam is not a race

It is a set of ideas like communism or the impressionist art movement

I am free to criticise, mock, condemn and hate it

Islam is tyranny

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@NiohBerg It's so obviously a lie. How would they have got 50,000 people out in 24 hours when they haven't sent the army in?

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@poirazis @GadSaad He dared criticise social media and big tech companies recently too. Maybe Instagram made them invade? (A lot of them seemed to be taking selfies). You do the math Michael - although maths doesn't really seem to be your strength.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@BasilTheGreat Migrants?

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@benonwine We are watching the "Fall of Rome" in real time.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@koshercockney Islamophobia needs to be renamed Islamarealism

[𝔼𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕥 𝕄𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕟 @ElliotMalin]

No, they really don't. I don't think you understand the word "deliberately" and "in part."

"Deliberately" means that the intended harm be the destruction of the protected group, in whole or in part.

This is the dolus specialis standard that is found in the first part of the Convention. Meaning you must prove, fully conclusively, that the intended harm be the at least in part destruction of the group. And to infer it requires that there be no other reasonable explanation (only reasonable inference test). In Gaza, you cannot establish that it is the only reasonable inference to be genocidal intent unless you were to assess the totality of the evidence, which requires assessing the conduct of Hamas as a belligerent and how it informs Israeli conduct. Not one accusation has done this.

As a demonstration of the requirements of the law, see below:

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.”

ICTY Tolimir Appeal Chamber para. 745: "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). Factors relevant to this analysis may include the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership in a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts. The existence of a plan or policy, a perpetrator’s display of his intent through public speeches or meetings with others may also support an inference that the perpetrator had formed the requisite specific intent."

"In part" requires substantiality that is so numerous that it threatens the existence of the whole.

As a demonstration of the requirements of the law, see below:

ICTY Krstić Appeal Chamber 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. 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)."

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." (emphasis added)

Ibid. para. 12: "The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. 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."

To determine what constitutes the area we need to look at ibid. para. 13: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered (emphasis added). Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale. Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders. The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis."

In the ICTY Sikirica Trial Chamber decision, para. 72, they stated: "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."

In Gaza, as of today, 73,335 people have reportedly been killed per the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Included in that are about 25,000 belligerents (we're going to choose to ignore this for the time being). The pre-war population of Gaza was 2,230,000. Through the entirety of the Palestinian population in which Israel holds effective control it is 5,500,000.

That gives us a look into nearly three years of war about substantiality, so let's take a look at both Gaza specific and the entirety of the Palestinian population (since Israel holds effective control of both).

Gaza: 3.28%
Totality: 1.33%

So, we can now do the legal analysis for "in part" destruction of Palestinians. This is similar to Sikirica in which about 3% or less has been killed in the area of control. In Sikirica the ICTY Trial Chamber found this to "hardly qualify as 'reasonably substantial' part of the Bosnian Muslim population in Prijedor. The reason for this is that it didn't affect the ability of the whole to survive within Prijedor. Like in Prijedor and Sikirica we see about 3% killed compared to the whole of Gaza. Unlike in Sikirica, under the totality of control the killed population is 1.33% which is substantially less than what was found in Prijedor to not constitute genocide.

Because about 3% does not constitute threaten the existence of the group as a whole, it cannot be substantial enough to constitute "in part" destruction of the group. Thus, there is not "in part" destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza, let alone the entirety of the area of control.

Now, it is clear that there needs to be a full analysis of the only reasonable inference test. This requires assessing the totality of the evidence and facts. We know that Hamas does not distinguish in combat, meaning they do not wear uniforms. We also know that Hamas has weaponized civilian infrastructure including homes, mosques, schools, even UN facilities. We further know that Hamas has weaponized healthcare facilities, this can be demonstrated by the piece of evidence in the original UN COI report accusing Israel of genocide where the report mentions the bombing of a tunnel at the European hospital. The European hospital tunnel was the same tunnel, and the same bombing, that killed Mohammed Sinwar. Mohammed Sinwar was directing the war from that tunnel. The Geneva Conventions have trigger conditions in which these places lose their protections, subject to proportionality, and we know that these trigger conditions have occurred in Gaza as caused by Hamas due to their tunnels (GCIV 28 & API 51(7)), diversion of aid (GCIV 23), weaponization of healthcare infrastructure (GCIV 19). Meaning, we have law on point stipulating that there is a reasonable alternative explanation other than genocide because the trigger conditions have been met.

Further, this also demonstrates a demonstration of reasonable alternative explanations other than genocide. Which means that the only reasonable inference cannot be genocide, which fails the only reasonable inference test.

Because it fails the only reasonable inference test it cannot be, per the law, that the dolus specialis requirement has been met through inference to intent.

Thus, you cannot establish that the intent requirement for genocide has been met.

Essentially, @sparklenaloha, I think I know the law on this extremely well, unlike you. And the ICJ's jurisprudence would preclude a finding of genocide, just as Amnesty stated in their report on page 101: "However, its rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations."

[Eylon Levy @EylonALevy]

This should be a global scandal.

Day by day, more and more "Gazan doctors" are turning out to be Hamas and Islamic Jihad combatants in disguise.

Just as Israel said all along, and nobody wanted to listen.

Hamas played you like suckers.

[Think about it . . . @chl6699]

@GadSaad Don't forget the planes must also take a share of responsibility. It's not all on the cars.

[Ted S @ClearReason]

Nearly 2 million Muslims live in Israel.

Fewer than 10,000 Jews remain in the entire Arab world, down from roughly 850,000 at its peak.

Yet Israel is the country accused of apartheid.