[crabbone]

You just repeated what I wrote, but tried to make it a counter-argument? That makes zero sense...

But later you demonstrate that you have no effing clue, not even the basic outline of what can possibly qualify to be a war crime. And this was the whole point: you don't understand what the words you are so eager to use mean.

Now, while people at ICJ aren't impartial in this case, they aren't as dumb. So, this is why, for example, they only charged Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes. Even though, for example, Smotrich would be a lot more fitting their obviously politically-motivated narrative. And the reason for this? -- A technicality! Only a military person can commit a war crime. Netanyahu and Gallant are military, and that's why they are on the file, while Smotrich or any other minister isn't (and couldn't possibly be, because that'd be just too much to laugh at).

So, you saying "government actions [...] constitute undeniable war crimes". Is just an example of brain rot. You literally don't understand what a war crime is. A civilian, no matter how ruthless, no matter the extent of their actions, cannot technically commit a war crime. It's impossible by definition, in the same way how triangular squares aren't possible. War crimes have "war" in the names specifically to separate them from other kinds of crimes based on the criteria that they are committed by military. That's the whole point of the term.

And, similarly to how you have no clue about the language you use, you have no clue as to what happens on the ground in Gaza, who's responsible for what kind of bad stuff, the extent of it etc. You are just regurgitating the talking points you've learnt from people who you feel politically aligned with, but you have no practical way and no motivation to figure out the true state of events. And, you'll continue to believe whatever makes you feel more comfortable with the group of people you want to be associated with, no matter what anyone from outside that group would tell you. So, convincing you is pointless. You need to at least be ready to try to figure out why people might disagree with you, but you are still miles away from there.

[simiones]

"The government" is an entity controlling the military. You can split hairs and discuss which specific people in the government are actually liable and which are not, but the general point I was making was more broad: Israeli leadership is clearly committing war crimes in Gaza, and it is very easy to argue that they are beyond that, that they are carrying out a genocide. Even you admit that the prime minister and minister of defense could be liable for war crimes, so saying "the government" is not some huge generalization. Especially when the rest of the government is very much aligned (or even more extreme) than those two.

And in relation to who is biased or basing their views on some obscure and highly biased sources: it's probably the side of the conversation who is denying what, again, every single international organization who has sent people in Gaza is saying. There is absolutely no debate from any credible source that what is happening in Gaza is wanton destruction on Israel's part.