Has the West been taken in by Hamas’ lies and anti Israeli narrative?

[OpheliaWasntMad]

https://nypost.com/2026/09/21/opinion/journalist-admits-anti-israel-narrative-driving-protests-is-based-on-hamas-lies/

This journalist admits that his reporting from Gaza was not accurate because he was afraid of retaliation from Hamas.
Why have so many believed every report from Gaza journalists?

FYI mass murder is not legally required for an act to be classified as genocide under international law

However ‘scholars’ have managed to poison the term genocide to their own ends and so this is where we are.
Can you expand on what you are referring to here?

Law is by its very nature pedantic. Of course you have to be fucking pedantic if you are going to accuse people of genocide. It is a specific offence with a specific meaning and you are still misunderstanding it.

If you are aware then I’m sure you’re not someone who says there is a genocide going on in Gaza

https://honestreporting.com/when-even-an-israel-bashing-lawyer-admits-icj-hasnt-ruled-israel-committed-genocide/

Yes. Genocide is the mass murder of a group of people, in an attempt to eradicate them from the earth.
It’s the Hamas philosophy.

It’s not the unfortunate civilian body count due to a war.

There are more Palestinians alive today than there were on October 7th.

Oh so it's you changing the term genocide to your own ends

What international court has said that? Please link.

The only international court I am aware of that can rule on genocide is the ICJ
ICJ’s own webpage says the ruling is still pending.
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/summaries

Hamas committed an atrocity on 7/10. The numbers killed don’t define a genocide - maybe the courts may even define what happened on 7/10 as genocide?

You should also look up the definition of genocide. It doesn’t define genocide by numbers. It also includes the following as resulting in genocide:

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

My term is the ‘man in the street’ understanding of the term genocide. The understanding of what a genocide is since the Holocaust took place.

If someone said ‘About 1.6% of a population have died in a war, is that a genocide?’ The answer is no.
20% of Poles died in WW2. No one says that was a genocide.

@KatiePricesKnickers
However ‘scholars’ have managed to poison the term genocide to their own ends and so this is where we are. Not talking about mass murder, but talking about what constitutes a genocide and can we stick it on the IDF.

The definition of genocide has not required mass murder since 1948.

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The author of the term genocide and the definition of genocide was holocaust survivor Raphael Lemkin. He was a Polish Jew that fled the Nazis for the US and lost 49 members of his own family in the death camps. It was his life’s work to create the prevention of genocide convention, and he wrote the definition you see today. Although his original definition was more broad and inclusive, what you see in the charter was edited down by the negotiating nations.

In his own words, he described genocide as:"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin

I think he would be shattered to see you writing off his life’s work as scholarly poisoning.

@Islandsofsand ”Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”

That hasn’t happened though.

Look what has happened in Gaza. I don’t know how this has been allowed to happen

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/01/new-google-maps-images-reveal-massive-scale-of-devastation-in-gaza

@KatiePricesKnickers
How does one live in rubble?

Why don’t you ask Hamas why they brought this onto the people of Gaza?

Case is on going so what I said was incorrect.

The physical destruction has happened, the issue is intent- was it deliberate and with the calculated intention of causing the physical destruction. That is what the ICJ must determine.

Also any one of the 5 actions with intent to destroy the group, a through e constitute genocide. It’s not required to do all 5 or say 3 out of 5.

My term is the ‘man in the street’ understanding of the term genocide
Right so you're making up how the term genocide is defined based on how you view it? Are there any other legal terms you do this for?

Ah yes - that old defence, it’s been repeated here often when concerns are raised. Let’s if it holds up in court.

No- we had no other option but to completely flatten their cities.

Woops - we really must stop repeatedly using 2000kb dumb bombs in Gaza. On no- how did Gaza end up looking like rubble?

Anyway - we will wait till this works it way through the courts and see if there can be an explanation for this. As one is certainly due.

The dropping of 2000lb dumb bombs illegal to use in dense urban areas was one of many reasons why the ICJ did not dismiss the case alleging genocide from South Africa.

According to my questions to AI

3.5% of Palestinians living in Gaza have been killed in the current conflict

70-75% of the Tutsi population were killed in the Rwandan civil war

60-67% of European Jews were killed during the Holocaust of the Second World War.

I think if the IDF really was genocidal the numbers would look different.

Read the above posts if think you think genocide’s legal definition is simply based on percentage of population killed.

Of course- you may think it perfectly acceptable legally for Gaza to be made inhabitable as the IDF have at least not killed all or most of the Palestinians. Say it out loud.