> 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.
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.
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.