Is it? I'm afraid I disagree, but then again, I've read the documents I mentioned. Feel free to ask for help if you want more clarity!
> In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions
Unfortunately this is not true, because it does not meet the definition (even you acknowledge "exceptions" in your post, and 1 exception disproves the rule). You also keep switching "Gaza" out for "Palestine", which is the country we're discussing.
So, please reassess now that you know we're taking about Palestine, not "Gaza" or any other geographical sub-portions of it: What is the "limited" list of things which Palestinians currently exercise rule over in all of Palestine (rule meaning total control, without israel believing it has the right to interfere with violent veto power)?
> Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs
israel thinks the entirely of Palestine should be israel's, and is effecting this goal via genocide. So, even worse than what you claimed. Let that sink in.
> some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world
And yet, in Palestine, the genocidal israeli occupiers are even worse than that. Let that sink in.
> Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control
And yet, in Palestine, israel does that even more, and also israel's latest conflict has killed journalists at a greater rate than any other in history. Let that sink in.
> The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state
The international community (which comprises the UN) recognizes Palestine. Most countries in the world do. israel is merely an exception.
> outright lied about starvation
Are you referring to israel here, who has repeatedly outright lied about starvation, as judged by the authorities on starvation?
> Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from
Likewise, lies are lies, wherever they come from. When it comes to unconvincing israeli claims that any and every critic in the world is biased against them, we certainly aren't referring to facts or truth.
> the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions
israel tends to attack and murder the people who validate such things that israel lies about, so they have lost the benefit of the doubt regarding such things. This is known in courts as an "adverse inference". If they wish to have more than zero credibility here, they can allow independent investigators into Palestine (all of it), without murdering them, to the satisfaction of the relevant investigatory bodies.
As far as bias goes: If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court. Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
> Is it? I'm afraid I disagree, but then again, I've read the documents I mentioned. Feel free to ask for help if you want more clarity!
You seem to just want to use vague terms and play word games.
> Unfortunately this is not true, because it does not meet the definition (even you acknowledge "exceptions" in your post, and 1 exception disproves the rule). You also keep switching "Gaza" out for "Palestine", which is the country we're discussing.
So you're saying Egypt and Israel were the rulers of Gaza...I mean if you really want to use ridiculously confusing definitions go ahead, but that's not particularly helpful.
> israel thinks the entirely of Palestine should be israel's
Then why did they leave Gaza in 2005?
> is effecting this goal via genocide
You have to really ignore the facts to make that claim, exactly like many UN officials do.
> And yet, in Palestine, israel does that even more, and also israel's latest conflict has killed journalists at a greater rate than any other in history. Let that sink in.
What people call journalists in Palestine often includes individuals holding actual hostages[0] and others that are part of Hamas, so those claims are quite problematic in general.
> When it comes to unconvincing israeli claims that any and every critic in the world is biased against them, we certainly aren't referring to facts or truth.
There are plenty that disagree with the claims, either way UN officials showing their bias isn't anything new and certainly didn't start with this conflict.
> If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court.
There are cases in progress with the ICJ, Israel isn't the one making the claim of genocide, they are defending against a claim, the burden of proof is on the parties making the claims, and they have so far failed to provide sufficient evidence to back their claims.
> claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
The burden of proof is on those that make the claims against Israel, and the UN has a way bigger credibility issue than Israel does when it comes to this conflict.
> You seem to just want to use vague terms and play word games.
If you don't seek clarity, it's totally ok for you to not ask. No pressure.
> So you're saying Egypt and Israel were the rulers of Gaza
Not sure where you got that from, it makes no sense. I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, whereas it's been reiterated thousands of times, via violence, that israel rules over Palestine with an iron, exploding fist.
> There are plenty that disagree with the claims
There are plenty that disagree with those that disagree with the claims. There are also plenty who disagree with the earth being round. That very loud people in the extreme minority disagree with something is not really evidence of anything.
> You have to really ignore the facts to make that claim, exactly like many UN officials do.
More accurately, one would really have to ignore facts to make the above quoted claim, like many supporters of the israeli genocide of Palestinians do.
> What people call journalists in Palestine often includes individuals holding actual hostages[0] and others that are part of Hamas, so those claims are quite problematic in general.
This is a claim often repeated by supporters of the israeli genocide of Palestinians, but unfortunately they never provide evidence of this "often" being the case. That said, the number of people who are both journalists and active combatants could theoretically be as high as 99%, and it still wouldn't justify israel restricting, much less killing, the remaining 1%.
> UN officials showing their bias
If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court. Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
> they have so far failed to provide sufficient evidence to back their claims.
Correction here: those claiming israel is perpetrating a genocide in general have provided sufficient evidence to back their claims. Regarding the formal court case around it: the plaintiffs have also provided sufficient evidence to back their claims.
> UN has a way bigger credibility issue than Israel does
You have this backwards: israel has a way bigger credibility issue than the UN (nearly 200 other nations united). So far, israel has failed to convince the world (the UN) that they have more credibility than the rest of the world put together.
> Not sure where you got that from, it makes no sense. I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, whereas it's been reiterated thousands of times, via violence, that israel rules over Palestine with an iron, exploding fist.
My point was just that there have been various levels of control/rule over Gaza over the years by different parties, with Egypt ruling over Gaza following Israeli independence until 1967, then Israel until the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, then Hamas eventually took effectively full control after short period of conflict with Fatah. I'm deliberately not using the term "Palestine" here because there is no clear definition of what "Palestine" actually means(which is a significant issue in this conflict obviously).
> That said, the number of people who are both journalists and active combatants could theoretically be as high as 99%, and it still wouldn't justify israel restricting, much less killing, the remaining 1%.
By what standards are you making this claim? The laws of war clearly allow for collateral damage.
> If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court.
Under what international procedure would Israel submit their claims of innocence of genocide for judgement? The burden of proof is on the party claiming there is genocide. This is aside from the obvious conflict of interest the UN has(as they are a party directly involved in perpetuating the conflict over the years with a clear history of double standards).
> Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
One should look at the evidence rather than blindly accepting anti-Israeli propaganda at face value.
> Correction here: those claiming israel is perpetrating a genocide in general have provided sufficient evidence to back their claims. Regarding the formal court case around it: the plaintiffs have also provided sufficient evidence to back their claims.
By what standards? There have been claims made(many of them with very obvious flaws), and there has yet to be a ruling on those claims.
> You have this backwards: israel has a way bigger credibility issue than the UN (nearly 200 other nations united). So far, israel has failed to convince the world (the UN) that they have more credibility than the rest of the world put together.
Many UN organizations like the UNHRC have been effectively run by oppressive dictatorships over the years, these are countries which no sane person can argue have any moral authority when it comes to human rights[0]. This is a common pattern at the UN[1] and is precisely why the UN has such a severe credibility problem when it comes to human rights and morality in general. People really need to understand what the UN actually is before they start claiming it as some sort of moral authority.
Is it? I'm afraid I disagree, but then again, I've read the documents I mentioned. Feel free to ask for help if you want more clarity!
> In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions
Unfortunately this is not true, because it does not meet the definition (even you acknowledge "exceptions" in your post, and 1 exception disproves the rule). You also keep switching "Gaza" out for "Palestine", which is the country we're discussing.
So, please reassess now that you know we're taking about Palestine, not "Gaza" or any other geographical sub-portions of it: What is the "limited" list of things which Palestinians currently exercise rule over in all of Palestine (rule meaning total control, without israel believing it has the right to interfere with violent veto power)?
> Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs
israel thinks the entirely of Palestine should be israel's, and is effecting this goal via genocide. So, even worse than what you claimed. Let that sink in.
> some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world
And yet, in Palestine, the genocidal israeli occupiers are even worse than that. Let that sink in.
> Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control
And yet, in Palestine, israel does that even more, and also israel's latest conflict has killed journalists at a greater rate than any other in history. Let that sink in.
> The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state
The international community (which comprises the UN) recognizes Palestine. Most countries in the world do. israel is merely an exception.
> outright lied about starvation
Are you referring to israel here, who has repeatedly outright lied about starvation, as judged by the authorities on starvation?
> Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from
Likewise, lies are lies, wherever they come from. When it comes to unconvincing israeli claims that any and every critic in the world is biased against them, we certainly aren't referring to facts or truth.
> the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions
israel tends to attack and murder the people who validate such things that israel lies about, so they have lost the benefit of the doubt regarding such things. This is known in courts as an "adverse inference". If they wish to have more than zero credibility here, they can allow independent investigators into Palestine (all of it), without murdering them, to the satisfaction of the relevant investigatory bodies.
As far as bias goes: If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court. Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.