What I will say though - argument aside - it was really nice having a rational debate where it didn’t descend into insult or heated argument. Or kept civil and that’s something I genuinely appreciate 🤝

Not an utter bonfire at all, I set out the legal protocol which you’ve had to accept... I’m glad we got there, eventually.

You're an idiot who cannot comprehend something so basic such as reading that she's not my friend because of Al Jazeera - but instead I went to University with her. Bannon isn't exactly the gold standard of journalism, so I don't know why you're criticising something that you don't have any moral high-ground to stand apart from?!

Yes. It doesn't give free licence to call something a genocide but instead those making assessments of "risk of genocide" should try and stop and "alleged" and "possible crimes". That is not *quite* the win you think it is.

I didn't say it was toothless. What I did say is its declaration isn't a legal judgment and actually can't legally be called a genocide until a court. That is literally written in the UN's own paperwork... un.org/en/preventgenocide/rw…

It's not adequate for Gaza because the interim assessment didn't say there was a "plausible" genocide. Why would you want a broader definition if the case is already done in all but a gavel coming down? 🤔

You don’t have to wait, you just have to understand the difference between assertion and fact of genocide.

NO court has ruled Gaza is a genocide. Fact.

Actually the ICTR was a temporary international court established in 1994, by the United Nations Security Council - so a judicial arm of the UN determined it inside a court room with evidence being assessed and the legal definition matched. I never said it is ONLY the ICJ.

Well I am cooking, because you now quietly have moved to admit that the court will have to decide on whether it has been a genocide or not when it sits. After all, you're just "some rando voice on Twitter"... Your words.

The ICJ has a case bought before it, so it will assess it. As for the functioning brain of my own - I literally have dismantled your claims one by one as you have shuffled and moved the goalposts. Some of your posts counter other ones you have posted. You have been all over the place - I have referenced documents which state there is only a legal process to determine "genocide" and not wishy-washy words from "some rando voice on Twitter" (your words). You have swallowed the false assertion that it is definitely a genocide, not me.

The only "tom" I found was 5 times as part of the word "customary"... Sorry, pal.

Read the highlighted segment in this text: "...must be determined by a competent international or national court of law with the jurisdiction to try such cases, after an investigation that meets appropriate due process standards". Nowhere does it say some guy called Tom highlighting the Genocide Convention meets that definition.

So you now accept that it's only the ICJ that can determine "intent", not you? I'm glad you read and agreed with a document from the same umbrella organisation you keep citing. Just in case you need it again: un.org/en/preventgenocide/rw…

For those saying there is a "genocide" in Gaza, there is a very important document you need to read by the very organisation which will be adjudicating. TL;DR - you can only call it a genocide when there is a legally defined "specific intent" by the ICJ. un.org/en/preventgenocide/rw…

You have suggested that, but that's not enough un.org/en/preventgenocide/rw…

I did, not anymore. My membership lapsed around 2022 and I did not rejoin. But I didn't have a physical card to cut up.