u/Responsible_Care_773

What will you do if the ICJ rules that Israel is not committing genocide.

I’m someone who at first thought that legally a genocide has taken place.

Now after looking at the evidence required specifically the sole intent threshold (please Google: Only Reasonable Inference) and the chain that needs to be connected, my prediction is that the ICJ will not rule that it’s legally a genocide.

So if this happens will this not cause Pro Palestine activists that have been saying “genocide” to lose legitimacy in the eyes of unbiased independents?

Will you continue to say “genocide” and if so, would that not be detrimental to efforts to bring unbiased independents to your side?

Like many of you, I am exhausted by the polarized noise online. Every thread turns into an echo chamber where nuance is treated like a blasphemy.

Can we step back and talk about actual accountability without the hyperbole?

Both the Israeli government/IDF and Hamas have clear records of breaking international law. But the online discourse seems completely allergic to addressing this constructively:

On one side, throwing around terms like "genocide" before any definitive, final legal ruling is made by international courts shuts down serious legal scrutiny and alienates people who want to look at the hard evidence objectively.

On the other side, any discussion of deliberate targeting of children, the deliberate destruction of specialized medical equipment (such as oxygen generators, MRI machines, dialysis units, and solar panels) and water wells, starvation as a method of warfare (related to the ICC arrest warrents), two-tiered legal system in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (violates Article 3 of the ICERD), the illegal transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied Palestinian territory (breaches the Fourth Geneva Convention), the documented use of Palestinian civilians as human shields by Israeli military units and systematic breaches of international humanitarian law by the state of Israel gets hand-waved away under the banner of "self-defense." Meanwhile, supporters of Hamas often try to sanitize or completely downplay an armed group that explicitly targets civilians and uses human shields by operating in civilian areas.

If both sides are capable of committing severe violations, how do we hold both accountable fairly? When we look at the immense lag-time of international justice, I want to know how people here think we should handle this:

When faced with overwhelming, heavily documented evidence of breaches of international law happening in real time, how should we talk about ongoing military actions and war crimes responsibly while waiting years for international courts to issue final rulings?

How do you apply meaningful international accountability to a sovereign state versus a non-state militant group that operates completely outside legal norms?

What tangible pressure points actually work to change the behavior of either side without devolving into partisan cheerleading?