It's odd this has been downvoted. There isn't anything factually incorrect. All statements have been proven.
replies(2):
I'm curious what your angle here will be - that these events never happened, that these events don't constitute genocide, or that this isn't "proof."
> The world's leading association of genocide scholars has declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
> A resolution passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) states that Israel's conduct meets the legal definition as laid out in the UN convention on genocide.
> Across a three-page resolution, the IAGS presents a litany of actions undertaken by Israel throughout the 22-month-long war that it recognises as constituting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
And then there’s
> B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel released separate reports on Monday based on studies of the past 21 months of conflict. The organisations, which have been active in Israel for decades, said in a joint statement that "in these dark times it is especially important to call things by their name", while "calling on this crime to stop immediately".
What level of proof would you find acceptable?
If we're talking about legal evaluation, then there is a strict formal procedure that collects and evaluates the evidence from both sides controlled by lawyers. And after the court comes to a final conclusion including appeals or whatever steps are provided by the legal system, then you may claim that something was proven.
For a scientific proof, the procedure is much more complex - basically you start with a claim and then you have to disprove or invalidate EVERY SINGLE opposite claim, fact or evidence. And there is actually no time limit here - scientists are still trying to disprove theories from the 17th century.
This is how things work in real world.
The legal presence / country of a company very likely performing a genocide is very much relevant and ontopic. Look up the dark history of companies like IBM and IG Farben and the term "Wir haben es nicht gewußt".
Netanyahu is wanted for warcrimes by ICC. Is he convicted? No, he is a suspect. Is he trying to avoid getting arrested? Yes, just like Putin. Both of these countries are likely to have recently commmited warcrimes.
After WWII and 'Wir haben es nicht gewußt' we set up international organizations to avoid this happening again. Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes these organizations but that is also a tell tale of their intentions.
If, someone proves something, it's proven right then and there, even if it takes years for people to understand it, or for it to make its way into textbooks. This stuff really is very obvious.
the second point is - these organisations are used to cement the status quo - which is also created by the colonial powers and has absolutely nothing to do with the reality in the world - thus on one hand making all conflicts unavoidable and on the other hand mostly illegal.
the third point is - the rules are not applied to all countries in the same way - e.g. Turkey occupied half of Cyprus and displaced a large part of its population, Turkey is bombing innocent people in Syria, Turkey keeps refugees that originally headed to Europe under very inhuman conditions - not only there are no sanctions for that, Europe is basically funding all of this. As Russia occupied Georgia and annexed parts of it, there were no investigations, no sanctions, nothing. As China occupied Tibet, there were no sanctions but huge investments instead. And there are many more examples.
If you want to have an accepted legal system then it may not be biased and has to apply to everyone without exceptions - what we have at the moment is not even a joke. It's the opposite of a legal system.
Generally speaking, in theory, the occupying power is supposed to be a care taker - they aren't supposed to take any action that integrates the occupied territory into the main territory. Allowing occupied territories to vote in the occupying power's elections is considered a form of integration. Doing so is considered acquiring territory via annexation, which is illegal under the UN charter.
(See for example Israel when the international community yelled at them for allowing people in Golan Heights to vote).
and, for example - if you are using one specific LEGAL definition of a genocide then you have to prove LEGALLY, following the regular process. if you're not doing it, then it's per definition not a proof.
Nope. There was a pretty smooth transition from "Nobody has ever wondered about this" to "All educated people know it's a ball shape" a very, very long time ago.
Eratosthenes comes up with a pretty good approximation both for how big the ball is, and how much its axis is off (you also if you think about it realise the planet must be spinning, that's why there's a day-night cycle)
Flat Earthers are a weird modern thing, they aren't somehow a remnant.
This isn't a secret. Israeli officials have long been explicit that their policies are guided by the goal of maintaining demographic control. As Netanyahu declared, "Israel is not a state of all its citizens... but rather the nation-state of the Jewish people and only them." This driving intent is what gives rise to the entire apparatus of control. It is legally enshrined in constitutional law through the 2018 Nation-State Law, which reserves the right of self-determination for Jews alone. This legal supremacy is then enforced through a two-tiered justice system in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers are governed by rights-respecting civil law while their Palestinian neighbors are subjected to draconian military orders. This judicial separation, in turn, enables the physical re-engineering of the land: a state policy of systematic land dispossession confiscates Palestinian property for settlements, while a discriminatory planning regime makes it nearly impossible for Palestinians to build, leading to routine home demolitions. The ultimate result is the deliberate fragmentation of Palestinian life into disconnected enclaves, which B'Tselem calls 'territorial islands' carved up by walls, checkpoints, and permit regimes designed to sever social and political ties.
Your narrow focus on the procedural illegality of a vote under occupation law is a calculated deflection from this reality. The disenfranchisement of Palestinians is not an incidental legal problem, it is a fundamental and necessary pillar for maintaining this regime of apartheid. You are meticulously explaining the legality of the lock on the cage, while deliberately ignoring that the crime is the cage itself.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
You're making a different argument then the person I am responding to.
The person I am responding to only said: "Hardly a democracy when it occupies Palestine, and Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections." [Presumably they meant citizens of Palestine here, since Israeli citizens living in Israel who are ethically palestinian can vote]
Simply put, that is an unreasonable criticism as Israel is simply following international law. Other countries do the same. If they did not do this they likely would recieve criticism. People who don't like it should encourage the international community to change international law.
That doesn't mean that every possible criticism of Israel is unreasonable (in fact there are many reasonable criticisms you could make), only that the one i was replying to is unreasonable.
The rest of your post is irrelavent because its talking about arguments that neither I nor the person I was responding to made. That said, i think the way you are quoting is misleading, but that is neither here nor there.
Your apologia that Israel is "simply following international law" is perverse. Everybody knows that Israel has never in its entire history, since its inception, ever given a fuck about international law, which makes your apologia extra comical. Furthermore, you are elevating a single procedural rule above one of the gravest prohibitions in the entire legal order, the crime against humanity of apartheid. The rule you cite is not a shield against this crime, it's a tool used to facilitate it. By forbidding political integration, the system enforces the very demographic separation required to maintain an apartheid state. Your claim that "other countries do the same" is a baseless false equivalence that ignores the unique permanence and stated demographic goals of the Israeli apartheid system. And your deflection that we should "change international law" is an unserious diversion. The international community doesn't need to change the laws, it needs to hold these genocidal zionists accountable for violating the most fundamental ones that already exist. Your entire response is a performance of pedantry to avoid acknowledging a criminal reality which, for almost a century, has been inflicting hell upon the natives whose land zionists have been brutally colonizing with absolute impunity - culminating in the predictable conclusion of Genocide[1][2][3][4][5].
You are defending the apartheid system by pointing to a single, well-oiled gear, while deliberately ignoring that the entire machine is designed to make a mockery of international law.
[0] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-734439
[1] https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/prof-amos-go...
[2] https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
[3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-c...
[4] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/israel-committ...
At its core, democracy requires political equality. The governed people must have a meaningful say in who governs them and how. That is not present in Palestine due to Israeli occupation.
It allows Israelis to vote, including Jewish settlers in occupied territories, but it does not allow occupied Palestinians (many of whom live right next to settlers) to vote.