Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza

There's a bit of an IQ test with this stuff. Obviously Israel and Hamas will both say whatever is most advantageous to them - of course one side will claim genocide and one will deny it, neither is meaningful.

A friend was telling me that Gaza has been starving for for 2 years so we looked back on the headlines and they said "brink of starvation" - so like - being on the brink for 2 years means you weren't on the brink?

Lastly Israel is clearly less restrained now than I've ever seen it. But like they were accused of genocide forever. So those accusations were false but now it's really happening? But if they had been restrained all along then they are the moral party?

I am not trying to persuade for a side it's just funny how so many posters here are like "ohhh we have the real and moral information here" when it's obvious that's not even available.

Given all the hatred that is going around, I believe the genocide is real. And if it's not real yet, it will be if someone doesn't put a stop to this.

But all the reporting does not add up.

Half the pictures Hamas shows of starving children aren't legitimate. They're children with medical conditions, not in Gaza, or from a different conflict.

The number of people starving to death each day are in the single or low double digits. If what was said was really true, there would be tens of thousands of people dead by now.

And I don't believe a single thing Israel says either. How many tunnels were actually found under hospitals? Definitely at least one. Definitely not all of them.

A little truth makes all the lies more believable.

You can be kept on the brink of starvation just like you can keep a cup hanging over the edge of a table. It's a manufactured famine, therefore it can be created with precision. Unlike the potato famine in Ireland, it's controlled and they literally count calories going in (before cutting it to 0).

“Half the pictures Hamas shows of starving children aren't legitimate. They're children with medical conditions, not in Gaza, or from a different conflict.”

This seems like a strong claim. Please back it up.

If your analysis is entirely headline based I can see why you might be confused. There are several levels of starvation, and Israel has progressively put Gaza through each. Complaining at each step is absolutely valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_scales

So according to that logic, Israel is intentionally orchestrating a "brink of starvation" which generates for it negative publicity but is very careful to ensure nobody actually starves. Why would be the strategy in that according to you?

> If what was said was really true, there would be tens of thousands of people dead by now.

But that is exactly the claim. What is your argument here? You say there cannot be a genocide because genocide is too awful?

Because they thought actual famine would be worse. They didn't realize how little the US would care.

I think there's something to the IQ comment I made earlier. If adversary A claims the adversary B is doing a terrible thing, that thing doesn't materialize, the smart money isn't to be like "oh well B is only not doing it because they are sinister."

Or say another way - if "they are evil" whether they do X or opposite of X, whoever is setting up that story for you is full of shit.

I think starving children with medical conditions is even worse! I really do not understand the recent Free Press articles about how news reporting about how children in Gaza are starving is not legitimate because the starving children in question had a medical condition. How does that matter? What audience is this news for? It makes everyone involved look like ghouls.

Exactly.. If your medical condition requires you to consume protein instance, and there are no sources of protein around (at reasonable prices), and you die out of starvation. How is that not a legitimate case?

https://youtu.be/Yu2qqlHT-zA