🧵Fabricated Israel genocide claim relies on quotes by Israeli officials to show “specific intent” necessary to prove genocide. South Africa ICJ filing lists 8 quotes by PM Netanyahu (numbered below) claiming intent to genocide. But each one is a lie. See debunking of all 8: 1/
Quote 1: Bibi promised “to operate forcefully everywhere.” Does this prove "specific intent" to genocide? NO. Tweet literally says opposite, attacking only Hamas and telling civilians to leave! Lie #1 by South Africa, this is the FIRST evidence claiming Bibi intends genocide. 2/
Quote 2: Bibi said ““[w]e are striking our enemies with unprecedented might.” Did this mean intention to kill all Pals? No. In same 3 min statement he specifically states the goal is to “eliminate Hamas” and NEVER refers to Pals or civilians. Lie #2. 3/
Quote 3: South Africa claims AFTER airstrikes that killed 2,670 Pals Bibi said soldiers “understand scope of mission” & stand ready “to defeat bloodthirsty monsters who have risen against [Israel] to destroy us.” There are 2 lies here, one shows shoddiness of court document. 4/
First, South Africa claims Bibi’s words came AFTER 2,670 Pals killed, as if they were connected. But the document cited about deaths is from Oct 17 (see below) while Bibi’s statement was made on Oct 15 or two days earlier! So the supposed connection is incredibly dishonest. 5/
Second, Bibi said absolutely nothing, zero, about killing Palestinians, genocide, anything like this. Here is the entire statement. It specifically names Hamas as the monsters, not civilians. Lie #3 by South Africa. 6/ gov.il/en/departments…
Quote 4: South Africa cites Bibi saying to Knesset situation as “struggle between the children of light and children of darkness, between humanity and law of the jungle” as “dehumanizing” and therefore "specific intent" to genocide. This is false, just lie #4 as shown next. 7/
Bibi's words to Knesset only cite Hamas, never Palestinians or killing civilians, names Hamas often as the “darkness” & "murderers." Not Palestinians or anyone else. It’s not "dehumanizing" to call rapists & baby kidnappers these things. Below is the core of Bibi's statement. 8/
Quote 5: South Africa cites a second statement by Bibi about “sons of lightness and… darkness” and “good” vs “evil” as somehow genocidal. Here is the full tweet; but the prior tweet in same thread specifically says “Hamas” – not Palestinians. Lie #5. 9/
Quote 6: South Africa cites Bibi’s “Christmas message” below as “specific intent” to kill all Palestinians. It’s not clear how, there is nothing remotely “genocidal.” Calling rapists & baby kidnappers “monsters” and “barbarians” does not evidence genocidal intent. Lie #6. 10/
Quote 7: South Africa claims Bibi’s reference to biblical story of Amalek evidences intent to genocide. But there is no evidence he meant Palestinians vs Hamas only. Amalek is used metaphorically in Jewish study to refer to mortal enemies of Jews, in this case Hamas. 11/
It may be true other Israelis in past used Amalek to refer to Palestinians. This does not therefore prove Bibi meant Pals. But better evidence: in SAME press statement Bibi specifically noted Hamas & “the murderers” were the target; so Hamas=Amalek. 12/ gov.il/en/departments…
Quote 8: This is the second time Bibi mentioned Amalek, again the focus was clearly on Hamas. He literally said Hamas the sentence before. So how it is possible to claim Bibi really said Amalek as meaning to kill ALL Palestinians? Lie #8. 13/
South Africa lies 8 times in failed effort to show Netanyahu voiced “specific intent” to genocide. Without intent proven, entire genocide charge against Israel FALLS APART. How strong can their case be if there isn't even ONE convincing "genocidal" quote by Israel’s PM? END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵CRITICAL: ICJ advisory opinion DOES NOT assert Gaza is "occupied" by Israel. Contrary to media reports actual language of ICJ opinion does not state that Israel occupies Gaza. Opinion supports claim that a "physical presence" is required for an actual "occupation." Analysis: 1/
Clause 92 discusses the concept of a “physical presence” required for an occupation. ICJ asserts that Israel “may still bear obligations under the law of occupation” due to certain authority over Gaza – but not that Gaza is therefore “occupied.” 2/
Clause 93 states that Israel is “capable of exercising… key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip” despite its withdrawal. But this alone does not mean “occupation.” ICJ’s conclusion on Gaza is in Clause 94, the final say on the matter in this ICJ advisory opinion --> 3/
🧵@hrw issued token report after 9 months regurgitating Hamas crimes on 10/7; still charges Israel with war crimes in same report. HRW does not deny rape but will not confirm, cannot "corroborate." Other than 10/7 Hamas gets free pass. Do not legitimize this report. Analysis: 1/
HRW makes sure to temper criticism of Hamas with section “Aftermath of the Assault” to describe only Israeli action post 10/7 as criminal. Message: Hamas did bad things but Israel is far worse. Aftermath section absolves Hamas actions post 10/7, only this one day is covered. 2/
Another example “Background” section notes closure of Gaza and (fake) restriction on goods but not even 1 comment on how Hamas amassed weapons via Egypt, built 500km of tunnels, rigged civilian Gaza for combat & planned 10/7 for years. Except for 10/7, Hamas gets a free pass. 3/
🧵Important @nytimes piece (see link below) on what we all know: systematic & massive use by Hamas of civilian Gaza as its core war doctrine. Civilian deaths in Gaza are a result of how Hamas conducts the war, not Israel. These Hamas war crimes are covered in article: 1/
Senior Hamas official admits to these crimes, asserting that even if weapons are stored in beds in civilian homes, it does not justify Israeli action. He believes Hamas should be able to kill Israelis with impunity and then enjoy permanent immunity by hiding among civilians. 2/
Hamas members justify using civilian Gaza for combat as they have no alternative. Otherwise they’ll be detected, get it? So they’re happy to, even boast about, how civilians deaths are an acceptable cost in their goal to destroy Israel. And the world indulges this insanity. 3/
🧵Jewish history denialism is a common form of antisemitism like this post claiming Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars. This is similar to Jewish temple denialism common in Palestinian society. Thread shows how Muslim scholars throughout history in fact acknowledged Jewish history. 1/
A recent and ugly example of this type of Jewish history denialism came from Pal leader Mahmoud Abbas in May 2023 during the UN commemoration of the Nakba. From Khazars to Jews "did not find anything" the goal is the same: to erase the Jewish connection to the Holy Land. 2/
Now the contradictions. In 1925 the “Supreme Muslim Council” under Grand Mufti Al-Husseini (who collaborated with Hitler) published A Brief Guide to Al-Haram Al-Sharif saying “Its Identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond Dispute.” 3/
🧵@TheLancet letter ridiculously claiming Gaza fatalities could be as high as 186,000 due to “indirect deaths” has key fatal flaw: Hamas casualty numbers already include indirect deaths! Authors double count deaths with multiplier. Here is Part II debuking fraudulent letter: 1/
Premise of article: conflicts lead to non-combat deaths, based on prior wars (e.g. Sudan, Congo) a 4:1 ratio of indirect to direct deaths is “not implausible” so 37,400 reported Gaza deathsx5 = ~186,000. But authors do not adjust 37,400 that already includes indirect deaths! 2/
Daily Hamas numbers reported by UN OCHA are proven to already include many indirect deaths for months, such as from lack of healthcare, a key category of indirect deaths. See examples from daily fatality reports below: 3/
🧵Widely cited letter in @lancet ridiculously implies total Gaza fatalities could be 186,000. Close review shows this short piece is based on junk research citing unreliable sources, gross misrepresentations, errors & omissions. This is a bad look for Lancet. Analysis: 1/
Piece starts by citing Hamas number of 37,396 fatalities citing UN OCHA – but negligently omitting that OCHA takes these numbers from Hamas. To back this number authors claim the figures are “accepted as accurate by Israeli intelligence services” – but this claim is false. 2/
Authors cite as only evidence a Vice article citing a Mekomit article claiming unnamed Israeli “intelligence sources” found Hamas numbers reliable. Author's admit “Israeli authorities” reject Hamas numbers, yet still rely on a fringe news item based on unidentified sources. 3/