They used a computer program to target hamas members based on signals and other intelligence inclusive of people who are not in any way combatants.
Bombs including and especially large not particularly sophisticated bombs were dropped on entire buildings preferentially at night to ensure the target would be likely to be home with their wife and family and you know any other families in the same building.
Previously such strikes with very large numbers of collateral damage were authorized to kill top members of Hamas. Now they were authorized to hopefully an 18 year old cook irrespective of the 7 children that would burn to death painfully in the fire.
They recovered around 150 hostages at the cost of 50,000 children being killed or injured.
Remember that Gaza isn't a democracy. Hamas is 50k people out of 2M of which the number of people that actually have decision making power would fit in a small room. Most people in Gaza aren't Hamas.
Israel is presently starving a large city full of people under the pretense of forcing them to leave knowing that can't do so. Starving people isn't morally different than herding them all into gas chambers.
If there is a place that needs immediate intervention it is using force to enforce peace in Gaza before all the remaining people in Gaza die.
They're starving 2 million people in broad daylight and basically everyone in the highest levels of the administration has said blatantly genocidal shit, but yeah it's all just bias.
Bringing up Al Jazeera as an unbiased source about Israel is weird.
Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed":
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
Somehow people cite it as a proof of genocide.
BBC has produced a documentary with narrator being son of Hamas official, and were forced to apologize for that [1]. They sheleved another documentary with impartiality concerns. They have contributors calling to "burn Jews like Hitler" [2].
So yeah, there are unbiased critics of Israel, just none of those you listed
> Amnesty international emitted report that say "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed"
Source? Perhaps older report, before the country dropped any pretense of respecting international norms on human rights. Today Amnesty sees a clear case of genocide underway against indigenous palestinians in Gaza. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
> 5.5.2 STATE INTENT
The jurisprudence on genocidal intent on the part of a state is more limited. The ICJ has accepted that, in the absence of direct proof, specific intent may be established indirectly by inference for purposes of state responsibility, and has adopted much of the reasoning of the international tribunals.380 However, its rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. The organization considers that the Genocide Convention must be interpreted in a manner that ensures that genocide remains prohibited in both peacetime and in war and that ICJ jurisprudence should not be read to effectively preclude a finding of genocide during war.
Regarding state intent, it appears this means that Amnesty is just remarking that a state can't launder genocide intent by parallel constructing additional motives or goals that are legitimate sounding.
So that does not support your conclusion that "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions, thus definitions should be changed". Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document. Those are not Amnesty words, neither the text actually in the report supports it.
> Alas, the text is misquoted, as it doesn't appear anywhere in the document.
I wrote the direct quote after the colon and ">" symbol. The part in quotes in my rephrasing. Of course AI wouldn't write such thing directly, they need to hide it deep into the report behind convoluted language.
This paragraph consists of
1. Explaination how genocide definition is interpreted by international courts, specifically ICJ.
2. Claim that existing interpretation preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict (for example, war in Gaza). I'm not sure that it's true, because for example, Srebrenica massacre happened during armed conflict and was found an act of genocide, but let's take their claim on face value.
3. Conclusion that we need change the interpretation of definition of genocide to be able to find during war conflict (specifically, war in Gaza)
Part 2 is what I summarized as "Israel is not commiting genocide according to existing definitions", and part 3 is what I summarized as "thus definitions should be changed". Technically they want to change interpretation and not definition, so the better summary would be "Israel cannot be found guilty of genocide according to existing interpretation of genocide, so the interpretation should change". Or do you disagree with this one too?
