Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms

Left but not far left. Litigation Support, Legal Videographer. Supporter of 🐝🐝 | Servant to 🐈🐈‍⬛ | 🍷🍺 | 🚫No Bandwagons #Resist BS on Right & Left 🟦

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

I am happy to join 6,000 prominent scholars, legal experts to sign a letter rejecting Gaza genocide charge. https://t.co/uJGPuKHE5G

include historian Niall Ferguson, Israeli historian Benny Morris, Holocaust historian and former US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt, Tel Aviv University professor emerita and former Yad Vashem chief historian Dina Porat, historian and author Simon Sebag Montefiore, UCLA professor Judea Pearl, and Brandeis University professor emeritus Jonathan Sarna.

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@rich_toronto Your right. I sea what you did their 😜

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@ElliotMalin I used to respect Rebekah on climate science, but now I’m wondering if she is bad at that too

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@SenSanders Useful idiot.

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@softtail65 Devo - (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction

“And I'm tryin' to make some girl
Who tells me baby, baby, baby, baby
Baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby
Baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby
Baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby…

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

Agree. There is and never was a genocide in Gaza. No matter how many times the click/vote/power seeker says it, that inversion of the truth is a gross lie divorced from the reality on the ground and meaning of the word.

[Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom]

It’s so easy for American politicians these days to shit on Israel. Bcuz that’s the politically popular thing to do. And we’ve got potential presidential candidates going over to Israel to “lecture” Israel on how to behave. Bcuz that’s the politically popular thing to do. Well fuck that. Until you’ve been surrounded on all sides by terrorist neighbors pledged to your destruction for 78yrs, you’ve got no business lecturing Israel about anything. I’ll continue to stand by & defend Israel every day, no matter how unpopular a stance that is and even though I could probably never get elected again with that stance. So what. It’s the right thing to do.🇮🇱

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@RachelBitecofer Exactly. And from the reporting I've seen, not a single Palestinian did a thing to help those poor hostages taken on Oct. 7.

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@Jessicam6946 Agree. My criticism of non-radical Muslims is the lack of them denouncing radical Muslims and what happened on Oct. 7.

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

🚨 @UN Commission of Inquiry report claims @Israel is responsible for #genocide in #Gaza - again‼️

This is big news. Huge, even. Right?

Wrong. If you browse global headlines today, you would certainly think it is. But if you know anything about international law & you scratch the surface of this latest report even a little, there is only one legitimate conclusion.

This report is all hype, no substance. There is little - if anything - the authors get right about international law as it actually exists in doctrine. When all the hype & misrepresentations of international law are stripped away, all we're left with is yet another piece of anti-Israel propaganda presented to a global audience by the United Nations bureaucracy.

Now, this latest report weighs in at 94 pages, and that's on top of the previous CoI on "Occupied" Palestinian Territory & Israel report of 72 pages published in September 2025 and an even earlier CoI report of 126 pages published in June 2024. The current report refers back to the previous two frequently, so we're actually dealing with a combined count of 292 pages.

Tbh, there is so much disinformation in each report, it would take a three-volume manuscript to fully debunk each one in sequence. I don't have time for that right now, and obviously no one on this venue would have the patience for that anyway.

For present purposes, then, I will focus on the two substantive allegations made in this most recent report to support the false "genocide" claim. I took the time to read the rest of the "evidence" in the report today, and the methods utilized to evaluate the first two allegations can be replicated for most other claims as well.

There are even so many errors just in these first two allegations alone that I won't bother engaging in a comprehensive critical analysis of each of these. Despite the extensive & systemic evidentiary flaws presented in these two preliminary allegations of this latest report, the legal deficiencies are fairly straight forward.

So, legal deficiencies will be the focus here - though some engagement of extensive evidentiary flaws is inherent in the legal analysis.

Ok, so the substantive allegations raised in the report begin in Section IV. "Physical harm against Palestinian children by Israel."

From there, the specific allegations I'll analyze here, in turn, are: A. Child casualties due to Israel’s use of explosive weapons in populated areas (p. 8); and B. Deliberate targeting of children by the Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip (p. 13).

Like the remaining substantive allegations, both of these are presented as evidence later in the report to "substantiate" the "genocide" claim (Section VII). When these individual substantive allegations are unraveled, so too is the overarching genocide claim.

That's the big picture for the report & this critical analysis. Now, let's address each of the substantive allegations - first "Israel's use of explosive weapons in populated areas", and second to the supposed "deliberate targeting of children" by @IDF.

(btw, the latest report is available here in case you want to follow along: https://t.co/yzSjmaHP1n; the previous report from Sep 2025 is available here: https://t.co/H1s56958yT; and the CoI report from June 2024 is available here: https://t.co/2GwkXNHsme)

1. IV.A. Child casualties due to Israel’s use of explosive weapons in populated areas (p. 8)

The primary substantive allegation in this section is presented in ¶ 31: "Israeli military operations in Gaza have been marked by the extensive use of explosive weapons and heavy munitions with a wide-area destructive capacity in residential areas, resulting in complete destruction of residential neighbourhoods."

First off, it is worth noting that the sole source for this claim is the "State" of Palestine Environment Control Authority - and it seems quite likely that this "Authority" is controlled by #Hamas terrorists. For reference, the headline for the source of this claim is "The occupation dropped more than 85 thousand tons of bombs on the Gaza Strip", and that "study" is available here: https://t.co/b8voszUXCk.

So let's just set aside the blatant anti-Israel bias evident from this source right from the second word of the headline (referring to the IDF as the "occupation"), and for present purposes let's move past the fact that the source for this story is likely to be literal terrorists engaged in information operations.

Instead, let's just assume that 🇮🇱 operations have, as the CoI claims, "been marked by the extensive use of explosive weapons and heavy munitions with a wide-area destructive capacity in residential areas." This alone doesn't tell us much - if anything at all - about #LOAC compliance or prospective genocidal intent of 🇮🇱.

That's because what this report FAILS to mention - as does nearly all media coverage & public discourse involving the use of explosive weapons & heavy munitions - is that steps can be taken to mitigate the potential harm to civilians even when using these weapons in populated areas.

The most common of these mitigation techniques is what we refer to colloquially in the targeteer community as "burying the bomb." In technical terms, this method is called utilizing a "delayed fuse" on the munition.

See, most conventional explosive munitions have 3 distinct fusing options: variable timing (air burst), point detonation (explodes on contact), and delayed fuse.

For the latter, a delayed fuse means the bomb doesn't explode until a set number of milliseconds after it makes contact with the target (ground, structure, vehicle, etc.). This allows gravity & momentum to continue carrying the bomb after impact, which means the ground (etc.) absorbs most of the explosive effects of the munition.

Back to targeteer parlance, the primary hazard to collateral concerns (such as civilian persons or objects) with an unmitigated (usually point detonation) explosion is "fragmentation" & "blast" (that is, overpressure from the explosion). But the primary hazard for a mitigated explosion is "crater ejecta/debris" (pic 1). And although collateral hazard areas for specific munitions are classified & therefore not available to the public, the mitigated technique creates a considerable reduction in potential harm to nearby civilian persons/objects compared to the unmitigated technique.

This is all very interesting, you may (hopefully) be thinking to yourself. But what does this have to do with the CoI substantive allegation of the use of explosive weapons/heavy munitions in populated areas & the ensuing claim that 🇮🇱 is responsible for "genocide" in Gaza.

Well, I'm glad you asked. Here's the thing. Neither this CoI report, nor any of the previous 2, account for the prospect that 🇮🇱 routinely utilizes delayed fuses when employing explosive weapons/heavy munitions in populated areas. And this is a major problem, primarily for two reasons.

First, images that are widely available in news reporting & on social media suggest the IDF frequently utilizes delayed fuses. I mean, if you're not a targeteer or fires specialist (present or former), you may not be able to tell just from looking at a few photos. But if you know what you're looking for, it's obvious that the IDF does frequently implement this mitigation measure.

Have a look at pic 2 for example. Notice the steep interior edges & considerable depth of this crater? These are common visual indications that a munition exploded below the surface while the ground (etc.) absorbed most of the blast.

This is a topic I've addressed here @X a few times before: notably here in relation to a @60Minutes story on the use of explosive weapons (https://t.co/V1PA6hCNxi); here in relation to the LOAC feasible precautions rule (https://t.co/taZrXb6rBa); and here in relation to the typical failure of media coverage to account for mitigation techniques such as burying the bomb (https://t.co/4rBFMv5icR).

That leads us to the second major problem to consider in relation to the failure of this CoI report to account for the fact that the IDF appears to commonly utilize this mitigation technique.

The report later becomes fixated on the claim that 🇮🇱 is responsible for "genocide" in Gaza (more below). And the use of explosive weapons/heavy munitions in populated areas addressed in this substantive section is cited in support of that conclusion.

But, wouldn't frequent use of techniques designed to mitigate harm to civilians be a factor that counters the finding that 🇮🇱 intends to destroy the Palestinian population as an identity group, in whole or in part, as such? Of course it does.

Accounting for that possibility, though, would detract from the conclusion the report authors are trying to reach: that 🇮🇱 is responsible for genocide. So either they're too ignorant to realize that this mitigation technique is frequently implemented (and what that means for the "genocide" conclusion), or they're too biased to admit it - or both.

Either way, this failure casts significant doubt on the reliability of the report authors & their conclusions. After all, there is nothing inherently unlawful about using explosive weapons or heavy munitions in populated areas.

I mean, banning or limiting use of #EWIPA ("explosive weapons in populated areas") has been a pet project of activist organizations such as @ICRC @hrw @amnesty etc. for over a decade now. At most, they've managed to convince many hapless states to sign on to a political declaration (not a binding treaty) on EWIPA. Israel, wisely, refrained, while even the United States (with @JoeBiden as POTUS) signed on.

Even with this misguided political declaration hanging around, use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) continues to be regulated by standard LOAC rules. And those rules include measures such as distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions in the attack.

Any guesses which of these foundational LOAC rules are addressed by burying the bomb? That's right! All three, depending on the specific circumstances.

And ... any guesses which of these foundational LOAC rules are not addressed by this CoI since it does not account for the fact that 🇮🇱 frequently utilizes this mitigation technique?

That's right. All of them.

As you may recall, that's because the substantive allegation that 🇮🇱 frequently uses explosive weapons in populated areas concludes with the observation that doing so results "in complete destruction of residential neighbourhoods."

Notice how blame for the "complete destruction" is apportioned solely to 🇮🇱. No consideration that the large-scale armed conflict was deliberately instigated when #Hamas terrorists committed one of the worst atrocities in living memory on 10/7. No mention that Hamas terrorists deliberately hide & fight among its own civilian population in the large-scale conflict it initiated. No mention that Hamas terrorists frequently plant IEDs in structures they leave behind, such that the IDF is forced to completely destroy neighborhoods in order to mitigate the threat of harm from lethal munitions left behind long after fighting has ended in a particular area.

Addressing these factors would counter the narrative that 🇮🇱 is responsible for the "complete destruction" of neighborhoods in Gaza. So, too, would the fact that the IDF routinely utilizes mitigation techniques such as delayed fuses on heavy munitions (which are best suited for destroying subterranean targets such as bunkers & tunnels) to avoid civilian harm.

If you're trying to condemn a country for "genocide" from the outset, these are all inconvenient truths that are best ignored in your study - if you know what to look for in the first place.

Failure to account for these factors casts doubt on the validity of the "genocide" conclusion presented (yet again) in this report. So, too, does failure to articulate a doctrinal standard for the alleged "deliberate targeting of children" by the IDF - as the next substantive section covers.

2. IV.B. Deliberate targeting of children by the Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip (p. 13)

Tbh every subsection in relation to this topic is beset by considerable evidentiary deficiencies - so it was difficult to pick just one to address. Still, given the current venue, picking just one is a good idea - so I decided to go with this one: "Injuring of a 10-day-old baby by quadcopter inside the tent in Nuseirat camp" (¶¶ 59-60).

This is an especially difficult claim to analyze because, like many others, the report doesn't specify the source of the factual scenario.

So, I did some research to try to find some material related to the incident the report describes: "On 12 April 2024 at 13:00, a 10 day-old-baby boy was shot by a quadcopter while being breastfed by his mother inside their tent in Nuseirat camp."

After some digging, the closest I could find is this Instagram post (not kidding) claiming, "Mostafa was shot in the head by an Israeli quadcopter when he was 9 days old" (available here: https://t.co/Ewmrgo6Na1).

If you check out that video, you'll notice at the ~10 second mark it briefly shows a baby with what appears to be a small, circular injury (or maybe a birthmark?) on the back of its head.

Of course, it's hard to say if this is the evidence the authors of the CoI report consulted for this finding since they don't reveal their source. But this is as close as I could get, so let's go with it.

Here's what the authors concluded (¶ 60 - and seriously, I'm not making this up): "The Commission viewed and analysed images of the bullet that hit the baby. The Commission concluded on reasonable grounds that the bullet was fired from a sniper rifle mounted on a quadcopter. Considering that the shooting occurred in broad daylight, the Commission concludes that the quadcopter controller would have been able to see inside the tent and assesses that the target was a mother and a baby."

But ... what "bullet"? And what "sniper rifle" or "quadcopter"? As far as I can tell, anyway, the only source for this evidence is an Instagram post that appears to show a baby with a small circular mark on the back of its head while the commentator claims it's an injury caused by a bullet fired by an Israeli quadcopter.

If this sourcing is accurate, the "Commission" just accepts all these claims as facts - with absolutely no substantiation - and then CONCLUDES that the (imaginary) controller of the (imaginary) quadcopter MUST have been able to perceive.

Alright, those evidentiary deficiencies -as grave as they are - must be addressed to then address the legal deficiency inherent in this ... "conclusion."

This is important because it is a recurring pattern in this (and previous) report(s). The authors responsible for this report are relying exclusively on their OWN perception of what MUST have occurred even though they have absolutely no ACTUAL idea what the knowledge & intent of the person (presumably) responsible for the (alleged) attack AT THE TIME.

Any guesses what we need to evaluate actual LOAC compliance as a matter of doctrine? That's right!

Evidence of the knowledge & intent of the personnel responsible for the attack AT THE TIME. That's because the war crime of directing an attack against a civilian person or object requires evidence that the alleged offender was aware of the civilian nature of the person/object attacked AT THE TIME (see pic 3 for a relevant excerpt of the Rome Statute @IntlCrimCourt, which 🇮🇱 has not ratified but the substantive provisions of which are consistent with IDF doctrine nonetheless - see, eg, https://t.co/xKbHjTIlJu).

So to connect the evidentiary deficiency to the legal error - the report authors are relying on their own perception of what must have happened (apparently based on some random Instagram post?) to this baby rather than on evidence of the knowledge & intent of the (seemingly imaginary) operator of this (also seemingly imaginary) quadcopter in order to conclude that the controller "would have been able to see inside the tent and assesses that the target was a mother and a baby."

And this is one of several seemingly factual bases presented in support of the substantive allegation involving the "deliberate targeting of children by the Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip." This allegation, in turn, is later utilized to support the plenary "genocide" claim - to which we'll turn now.

If we skip ahead to ¶¶ 338-51 (pp. 77-80), we encounter the plenary "genocide" claim that is making the rounds in global headlines now (and likely will for the rest of this week, at least).

Yet this latest "genocide" claim relies on the findings of previous CoI reports as well as substantive allegations presented in the current report to support the conclusion that 🇮🇱 intends to destroy the Palestinian population as an identity group - rather than Hamas as a terrorist group - in whole or in part, as such.

Here's the thing. The current report is plagued throughout by the same evidentiary deficiencies and legal flaws addressed above. And previous reports adopt the same flawed methodology as most similar reports that reach the "genocide" conclusion.

That is, they draw from a fairly small sampling of rhetoric from select political figures - usually taken out of context or misrepresented altogether - to establish the "genocidal" intent. Then they rely on effects-based observations to establish the "genocidal" acts. This popular methodology isn't consistent with a doctrinal approach because it results in a distorted assessment of both intent and acts.

A doctrinally-defensible method would, instead, start with what the stated objectives of IDF operations in Gaza (and the region) are then utilize a balanced & informed approach to assessing whether conduct on the battlefield is consistent with - or contradicts - that stated intent.

In the present conflict, the stated strategic objectives have been consistent from the very beginning. As @IsraeliPM @netanyahu & other (actually) relevant officials have routinely expressed, the intent is to end the enduring security threat posed by Hamas (and other regional proxies of the Iranian government) & to repatriate all hostages (pic 4, the latter of which has thankfully now been accomplished).

If we start with that stated intent, then we observe mitigation techniques on the battlefield such as burying the bomb on explosive weapons utilized in populated areas or warning the civilian population before strikes when possible or deconflicting humanitarian activities & military operations or taking measures to move the civilian population away from highly kinetic areas and so on, what we're left with is a conclusion that is very different from the findings of this & previous CoI reports.

But, the actual doctrinal findings don't fit a preferred narrative of blaming & condemning Israel while ignoring or downplaying actual atrocities committed by literal terrorists.

Given unlimited time & space, an analysis similar to that conducted above could be presented for pretty much all the evidentiary claims & legal conclusions presented in this - and previous - CoI report(s).

The end result is the same, whether confined to the factors addressed above or resulting from a more comprehensive analysis.

This report is a joke, and its conclusions are thoroughly unconvincing. And yet, it will be regarded by MSM outlets & Red-Green Alliance propagandists as the gospel truth for months or years to come.

Still, for those who know better, the final assessment is clear. This CoI report is simply yet another stain on the credibility of @UN_HRC & the UN bureaucracy as a whole.

#TheMoreYouKnow #legaldisinformation

[Noa Tishby @noatishby]

We were told Iran lost this war. But now it seems like they might be getting a deal which gives them everything they want. In the past three months, the United States and Israel defeated Iran in every measurable military way. And now this Memorandum of Understanding is giving Iran 300 billion dollars for reconstruction. Every sanction terminated. Its frozen funds released. And its highly enriched nuclear material left sitting inside the country.

Iran found out that pursuing a nuclear weapon and posing a threat to the world could be rewarded. And all they would have to do is wait long enough and lie long enough.

What the West lacked was stamina and patience. When dealing with a terrorist nation-state that has no regard for its own citizens' lives, that is guided by a middle-aged radical doctrine and is willing to pay any price to see that doctrine come alive, you need to understand your enemy in order to win over it. We now have 60 days to make the right deal. And the eye on the prize needs to be on removing the enriched uranium. Not just the 60%, but all of it.

This is the window where the real deal needs to be negotiated, and negotiated properly/ The highly enriched nuclear material has to leave the country. It needs to address the terror proxy network, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. It needs to address Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile. And it needs to address the rights and freedoms that its people deserve. Anything less isn't a solution. It’s a reward.

We've come this far, it’s time to build a new Middle East free from the ongoing threat of the Islamic regime in Iran and its proxies. It requires patience and persistence, and I pray that our leaders can follow through and turn a short-term military victory into a long-lasting political one.

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

100% there is no genocide in Gaza. No eradication project. People confused about what the word means is culturally appalling and dangerous for the future of western society. The confusion has indeed been engineered by people know what they are doing. No genocide does not mean simply too much death and destruction in war. It is about intent and action to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Sam Harris @MakingSenseHQ is spot on.

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@WalshFreedom @billmaher I would love to see Joe go on Club Random and hash it out respectfully with Bill, perhaps over a big ‘ol doobie. #JointSession

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@BriannaWu FYI the full 1 hour, 18 minute interview is available on 60-minutes Overtime on YouTube.

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@michaelshermer “Nuh uh.” - Pretty much all the comments.

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@RealTimers @billmaher @JohnFetterman @rep @DanCrenshawTX @donnabrazile @HBO What does it say about democrats given Sen. Fetterman is more popular with the republicans? #RTOvertime

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@ChrisCuomo I wonder what Chris makes of John Bolton saying the Iranian regime could buy a nuclear weapon from North Korea.

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@McFaul I believe I heard Fmr. Amb. McFaul describe the war with Iran as a “war of choice, not of necessity.”
I believe I also heard Fmr. Amb. John Bolton say N. Korea could sell the Islamic regime in Iran a nuclear warhead in 72 hours. Can McFaul be certain this was a war of choice?

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@JamieMetzl Yes, 💯🎯

[Scott G ⚠️Beware the algorithms @scottginpdx]

@Scaramucci Well said❗️Beware the algorithms.