by jameshilliard | 2025-10-12 00:20:24+00:00
> Not sure where you got that from, it makes no sense. I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, whereas it's been reiterated thousands of times, via violence, that israel rules over Palestine with an iron, exploding fist.

My point was just that there have been various levels of control/rule over Gaza over the years by different parties, with Egypt ruling over Gaza following Israeli independence until 1967, then Israel until the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, then Hamas eventually took effectively full control after short period of conflict with Fatah. I'm deliberately not using the term "Palestine" here because there is no clear definition of what "Palestine" actually means(which is a significant issue in this conflict obviously).

> That said, the number of people who are both journalists and active combatants could theoretically be as high as 99%, and it still wouldn't justify israel restricting, much less killing, the remaining 1%.

By what standards are you making this claim? The laws of war clearly allow for collateral damage.

> If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court.

Under what international procedure would Israel submit their claims of innocence of genocide for judgement? The burden of proof is on the party claiming there is genocide. This is aside from the obvious conflict of interest the UN has(as they are a party directly involved in perpetuating the conflict over the years with a clear history of double standards).

> Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.

One should look at the evidence rather than blindly accepting anti-Israeli propaganda at face value.

> Correction here: those claiming israel is perpetrating a genocide in general have provided sufficient evidence to back their claims. Regarding the formal court case around it: the plaintiffs have also provided sufficient evidence to back their claims.

By what standards? There have been claims made(many of them with very obvious flaws), and there has yet to be a ruling on those claims.

> You have this backwards: israel has a way bigger credibility issue than the UN (nearly 200 other nations united). So far, israel has failed to convince the world (the UN) that they have more credibility than the rest of the world put together.

Many UN organizations like the UNHRC have been effectively run by oppressive dictatorships over the years, these are countries which no sane person can argue have any moral authority when it comes to human rights[0]. This is a common pattern at the UN[1] and is precisely why the UN has such a severe credibility problem when it comes to human rights and morality in general. People really need to understand what the UN actually is before they start claiming it as some sort of moral authority.

[0] https://hrf.org/latest/un-elects-dictatorships-to-human-righ...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/27/saudi-arabia-u...