• Timii
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    As a perfect example, your obvious bias strongly influences readers evaluation of your opinion. Guess what mine is.

        • zazo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ok let’s be pedantic then

          The judges had stressed they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.

          Israel isn’t convicted of committing genocide, yet as there’s only “a plausible risk of genocide” - and I’m sure the “defense” minister calling for the starvation of all people in Gaza and referring to them as “human animals” will do wonders for Israel’s case…

          The current ruling is that “Israel must take all measures to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza” - which is an interesting statement to make if the ICJ thought no genocidal acts were happening.

          But hey innocent until proven guilty right - I just hope if it does get proven you’ll be the first one to start shouting how Israel is committing genocide - the same way you’re currently doing the opposite - as that would show your true lack of bias…

    • SoJB@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Witness how, yet again, these types play their cute little games dancing around the question, never addressing the core issue that they themselves spout as some kind of grand “gotcha”.

      Israel is committing state sponsored genocide on the Palestinian people.

      We will remember you as the collaborator you are.