Have they specialised in genocide? Have they ruled on any genocide allegations? Are they listed in any ICJ judgments as either associate judges or experts? You put them out asking if they were qualified enough and I did not glean as much information as I needed from your post (xitter.cf/omnisophos/status/2114…) so I was asking for more information on their relevance to assess genocide.

You mean, the reporting that is so obviously you (#bias) but you don't name the person making the analysis. Who wrote that piece?

Ruling territory settlements as illegal is not the same as war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. You seem to be dancing around a load of different things to try and distract from the fact you literally have no evidence to back up your claims of the major charges.

2 can play at the copy and paste your own Tweet game: xitter.cf/HugoSugg/status/211476…

Have they specialised in genocide? Have they ruled on any genocide allegations? Are they listed in any ICJ judgments as either associate judges or experts? You made the claim, you answer the questions.

Not everything controversial about the UN can be dismissed - there are genuine concerns. unwatch.org/database/problem…. Again, you claim "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" with no legal judgment or trial seeing and assessing all available evidence - instead just because someone said it and you blindly accept it as gospel.

People not being employed at all doesn't make them authoritative voices in a case that ONLY the ICJ can determine. They might be called up on their expertise in certain areas (although none of the following have "genocide" in their credentials) but that doesn't make the UN credible in their determination of "war crimes" and "genocide".

Says the guy literally blindly parroting out “genocide” in the dark with no legal judgment and blindly accepting a highly controversial body as fact before any judgment is handed down.

None of them are employed by the ICJ, the body that rules on an allegation of genocide. The ICJ did not find “plausible” genocide in its interim ruling, either.

It’s not a court of law - it can only speculate on that. Nothing has been legally proven. They are disputable claims. Also, the UN is controversial on the issue of Gaza and is not a neutral body.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court. You’re right, people can - but they’re not legally trained judges but still think they know better than the ICJ. If and when it is, I’ll accurately reflect that in my reporting - as any qualified journalist should do.

That's speculation without legal judgment, so it's an "alleged genocide"

It is a war until it is proven in a court of law otherwise.

I’m not saying the harm isn’t significant and not discounting the loss of life or belongings - but equally, warning people a bomb was coming isn’t encapsulated inside the narrow, legal definition of genocide. That’s why the push is there to extend the definition.

You said the definition needed to be broadened to protect civilians from harm then you literally post an article backing up my point that evacuation warnings were sent out. I don't know what you're trying to achieve but you have monumentally failed on basic comprehension.

Oh you poor man. You really don't understand the basics do you? RAJAR isn't LBC, it's the official body that measures radio listening figures. Why don't you actually read something to learn? rajar.co.uk/docs/2026_06/202…

Do you know what RAJAR is, idiot?

Poppy? I'm not going to share something with a colleague of mine I know personally because why should you have any more oxygen for your disgusting lies. Oh, and don't blow me a kiss again - you're not that desirable.

It's a real phone call so well done for literally justifying my point