An analysis of the MoH methodology, the exacerbating challenges it faces as the war continues, and estimates from independent researchers and humanitarian organisations.

An analysis of the Gaza MoH methodology, the exacerbating challenges it faces as the war continues, and estimates from independent researchers and humanitarian organisations.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.comEnglish
    51·
    2 months ago

    No, but as I said plenty of experts and scholars are calling it one. I believe the ICJ said that it is “plausible,” which I taken to mean that it is inconclusive. Consider that this was many months ago before the more recent escalations.

    For my own part, I’m neither an expert nor do I have enough reliable, unbiased information to make any sort of assertion on the topic. Reasonably, I can only defer to the experts and try to filter out sources that have a vested interested (in either direction). There are experts saying both yes and no, so it really comes down to who you trust.

    • DarthJon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      2 months ago

      Newsflash: lots of these “experts” hate Israel. Same reason why they seem single-mindedly focused on such a tiny country with all the other atrocities and human rights abuses happening around the world. Did you know that just yesterday the Turkish military was bombing the Kurds?

      And no, the ICJ did not rule that it is plausible Israel is committing genocide. This is a popular misconception. The former head of the ICJ clarified the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

      “Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”

      In other words, the court basically said the case can move forward. That’s it.

      Unfortunately, there is no unbiased information about Israel. Even the so-called experts are biased. Israel is arguably the most divisive country on the planet (which seems odd for such a tiny country of only 9 million citizens) and anybody writing about it does so because they have strong opinions about it.

      • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.comEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        Well, nothing is going to convince you that Israel might (not necessarily is, but might) be committing genocide since you are just going to claim that experts from multiple nations and walks of life sre biased.

        In other words, the court basically said the case can move forward. That’s it.

        One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.

        nd anybody writing about it does so because they have strong opinions about it.

        You do appear to have already made up your mind on this matter. You have other comments authoritatively proclaiming that Israel is not guilty.

        • DarthJon@lemmy.worldEnglish
          13·
          2 months ago

          Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don’t support it. By the way, did you know that during the 2014 war in Gaza, when the death toll was around 2500, people were accusing Israel of committing genocide then too? Anti-Zionists deliberately stretch the bounds of these concepts to make Israel a pariah. Just keep throwing accusations around and eventually something will stick. And even if it doesn’t, Israel’s enemies will continue to believe it anyway. This is a longstanding part of their propaganda strategy.

          One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.>

          No, it literally means nothing other than, “We, the ICJ, can hear this case.”

          • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don’t support it.

            Ignoring every fact you don’t like usually does that.

            Besides the point of arguing if or isn’t a genocide, you have to admit its pretty fucking bad that Israel is doing something that looks so much like one right?

            Even if not genocide they shouldn’t be bombing, killing, or starving their neighbors

            • DarthJon@lemmy.worldEnglish
              15·
              2 months ago

              Like I said, people were screaming genocide in 2014 when the war lasted 2 weeks and the death toll was miniscule. Meaningless.

              They were violently attacked and they have the right to respond with military force, the same right that any sovereign nation has. It’s one thing to question whether Israel could be doing more to prevent civilian casualties, but if your starting point is that Israel just shouldn’t respond at all, then your position is simply unreasonable to begin with.

              • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                3·
                2 months ago

                See this is again you ignoring what is happening. A response is not destroy everything.

                Death toll isn’t the issue. It’s their systematic destruction of the country. Their schools, hospitals, infrastructure and records.

                It meets all the criteria. Even your response is just Israel can kill everyone and it would be justified even while being the ones lording over the Palestinians.

                • DarthJon@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  14·
                  2 months ago

                  Gaza isn’t a country, it’s a tiny enclave. War is very destructive. The best way to avoid it is to not start wars.