My read of the article was that “most transparent genocide of all time” meant “most obviously occurring genocide when viewed in real time”. I think that’s a fair take having checked again. With that definition in mind, the claim is laughably hyperbolic.
The majority opinion, backed by the ICJ, is that Gaza has the potential to devolve into genocide but currently does not meet the definition. So we’re already wildly off the claim. Add to that literally dozens of past genocides that were widely reported on and universally recognized as such and the claim just falls apart.
That is not what the ICJ ruling means. They do not have the power to convict nations or individuals of genocide. It was simply a preliminary hearing to see if a full trial is warranted. You’re misrepresenting the courts decision either ignorantly or maliciously.
My read of the article was that “most transparent genocide of all time” meant “most obviously occurring genocide when viewed in real time”. I think that’s a fair take having checked again. With that definition in mind, the claim is laughably hyperbolic.
The majority opinion, backed by the ICJ, is that Gaza has the potential to devolve into genocide but currently does not meet the definition. So we’re already wildly off the claim. Add to that literally dozens of past genocides that were widely reported on and universally recognized as such and the claim just falls apart.
That is not what the ICJ ruling means. They do not have the power to convict nations or individuals of genocide. It was simply a preliminary hearing to see if a full trial is warranted. You’re misrepresenting the courts decision either ignorantly or maliciously.