General Discussion

They go on to airily dismiss the definition articulated in in the Geneva Convention as “an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence".

Amnesty forced readers to wade through 101 pages of spin before getting to a discussion of the Geneva Convention's clear parameters for a finding of genocide. Amnesty helpfully make the case for this not being a genocide by its own admission on page 101 and in its footnotes for the discussion that follows which include case citations for the following cases.

In 2007, in Bosnia v. Serbia, the International Court of Justice found that genocidal intent can only be established when it is the only plausible inference to be drawn from a nation’s pattern of conduct. The court reaffirmed this standard in 2015 in Croatia v. Serbia.

Why did Amnesty cite the cases despite the fact that the rulings were contrary to Amnesty's claims concerning an "overly cramped interpretation of genocide"? Amnesty cited the cases to cherry pick quotes from a dissent that they saw as helpful to their dubious claim.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/

==========================

The Geneva Convention is an international treaty with clearly articulated definitions, provisions, and conditions. There is a a body of case law supporting the specific intent requirement for a finding of genocide. This war does not fit it.

The fact that Ireland and Amnesty are seeking to redefine the term "genocide" in order to make their case against Israel underscores the weakness of the genocide claim.