But they did NOT find that Israel is NOT committing genocide though, so you saying I am making it unfalsifiable, is false.
You already said you won't accept that finding.
You have said they can NEVER make that finding.
Lets stay focused on the two primary points I am making.
My points are as follows:
1. There is objective proof of genocide - intent, incitement and actions.
This is what you believe.
The ICJ has not agreed with you.
They have said there is objective proof genocide is plausible, or - if you prefer - that there is
evidence of genocide.
You have decided that this is proof.
That is your right.
My objection is only to you saying that the ICJ agrees with you and has said this is proof.
2. The ICJ did not explicitly absolve Israel. Why? Because there is plausible genocide.
We agree.
Only you seem to think that plausible means it is proven and the ICJ has said so - only "tacitly".
Regardless, given they do not provide guilty/not guilty verdicts, but only advisory opinions, it is important to interpret their rulings taking the history, political rhetoric, statements by politicians, public opinion and the nature of the conflict into consideration, and conclude what it actually MEANS than fixate on what it SAYS. That is not just me saying it, that is what observers on both sides are doing. When you fixate on what it SAYS, it is called "getting off on a technicality".
Look.
If you are willing to say "this is my interpretation - it isn't what they said, it is what I think it means" then that's fine.
That wasn't you and Frank have been doing.
You've been claiming that is what it said.
Also, that it is obvious that you're interpretation is right because there is no other logical conclusion or way to interpret the ruling, which is clearly nonsense.
Just stop claiming they said something they didn't say, and just argue that you prefer your interpretation.
So, if you take - the fact that the Israel was not unequivocally absolved and exonerated by the ICJ, but instead found that there is plausible genocide, AND combine it with the fact that objective proof per #1 exists - I interpret the ICJ ruling as a tactful admission of genocide.
And that depends on you interpreting the evidence the ICJ did not accept as proof as proof.
Once again - that this is YOUR INTERPRETATION is fine.
Just stop pretending it is anything more than that.
You can argue the other way around as well
Thank you for acknowledging that.
That's all I've been asking.
It is the same for the argument regarding a ceasefire. Pro-Israel supporters can argue that the ICJ did not ask Israel to ceasefire. But they did not ask Israel to continue the war either.
Why the fuck would they ask Israel to continue the war?
In what universe was that even on the table?
Instead they asked Israel to abide by the 6 provisional measures, which cannot be implemented without a ceasefire. So I am going to say that the ICJ called for a ceasefire without explicitly calling for one.
Exactly! That is what you
believe.
That this cannot be implemented without a ceasefire.
You are free to believe that.
Just stop saying that it is what the ICJ ordered.
Say that you don't think the orders can be implemented without a ceasefire.
You can disagree with it, but you have to show me that you are able to implement or are already abiding by the 6 provisional measures in order to prove me wrong. But pro-Israel supporters cannot.
Not being in favor of Israel continuing the military operation, I have no interest in the argument.
