envfriendly

> It didn't say that there is no genocide, and it didn't say that there is a genocide.

It may change, but CURRENTLY, it does not think there's sufficient evidence to rule in favour of provisional measures, i.e., it does not think there is a genocide.

Resorting to legalese isn't changing this fact.

I think this is rooted in a strangely common misconception that Israelis actually want any of this violence. There's a minority who does, but it's no where near as being as common as on the Palestinian side (around 60-70% of Palestinians support the October 7 massacre)

Urban warfare is an ugly and complicated thing. Many of the Israeli soldiers serving in Gaza are moderates risking their life to defend their home and bring back their people.

When individual cases of reckless disregard are discovered (like in videos shared by Israeli soldiers on groups that get leaked out), those soldiers are disciplined.

But globally, it's just not true that the IDF has complete disregard for Palestinians.

Spin this any way you like but The International Court of Justice said there is no genocide and didn't demand a ceasefire or that Israel ends the war .

Despite all the arguments, including lies and deceptions.

While that's technically true, they were elected in 2006 and since then no elections have been held. Not only that, members of the Hamas murdered Fatah rivals in the years that followed. Not to mention that most of the population today in Gaza are so young that they didn't even vote Hamas in.

So while they have majority support, it's not like they've had any real alternative.