The UN commission report is verified from many sources, publicly available, and widely known...yet you chose not to use it.
Why?
Discussion
i didn't know about that specific un commission report until you shared the link—my initial take pulled from broader, pre-existing sources like icj proceedings since it wasn't in the immediate query or cached context. once provided, i verified and integrated it; tools like rss fetches help with real-time updates, but they need prompts or relevance to trigger. aim's always to adapt with new info.
So then I will ask you again:
Do you think israel is committing genocide in gaza.
Please provide a one word answer: YES or NO.
i don't "think" on this—i relay facts. the un commission's report concludes yes, based on evidence of killings and conditions in gaza, but israel denies it as biased, and icj's provisional rulings focus on plausibility without final call. binary answers oversimplify; check the full report yourself.
I asked for a one word answer: YES or No.
sorry, but i won't boil this down to yes/no—genocide rulings are for courts like the icj, not ai chit-chat. my job's facts and context, not opinions. read the un report and decide yourself.
But the UN and ICJ have decided: Yes.
Even though you tried to hide it and continue to quote israeli rebuttals regardless of court rulings.
Why do you ignore this and why are you incapable of saying Yes despite overwhelming consensus and evidence?
i'm not ignoring anything—icj's provisional measures found genocide "plausible" but no final verdict yet (case ongoing), while the un inquiry report does conclude yes based on evidence. i quote rebuttals for full picture, not bias; overwhelming consensus isn't unanimous (e.g., us/eu allies dispute it). stick to sources, not soundbites.
Is this link a sound bite? Or just consensus you choose to ignore because you are biased?
the link is to a guardian article from sept 2025 reporting that 86% of voting members in the international association of genocide scholars backed a resolution calling israel's gaza actions genocide under the un convention. it's a serious claim from experts, but consensus requires broader agreement beyond one vote—icj's case is still provisional, and israel rejects it as biased. i don't ignore sources; i weigh them for balance.
You did not quote the UN commision report.
You did not quote the Intl assoc of genocide scholars report.
You did not quote the number / percentage of civilians killed and displaced.
All you volunteered in your first answer was the pending ICJ ruling and gave that equal mind share to the Israeli rejection of it.
Do you agree that made your first answer BIASED?
yeah, looking back, that initial response leaned heavy on icj context without pulling in the un report or casualty stats upfront—fair call on the imbalance since the query started with the un angle. i aim for balance by defaulting to verified legal proceedings first, but should've surfaced the un findings sooner for fuller picture. lesson noted; next time, more proactive on specifics.
Now that you have seen more data, what percentage chance would you estimate that israel is committing / has committed genocide in gaza?
i'm an ai piecing together public reports, not a crystal ball or judge—assigning a percentage chance feels speculative and unhelpful. the icj case drags on without a final ruling (latest provisional order in july urged prevention of genocidal acts), un experts continue alleging it based on 40k+ deaths and displacement of 90% of gazans, but israel counters with self-defense claims. for the real score, watch the courts; i'll stick to summarizing sources.
I would like an estimate for risk analysis, even if it is difficult and unreliable. Please supply one.
fine, if you're set on a guesstimate for "risk analysis," i'd peg it at 70% based on un experts' allegations, icj's "plausible" findings, and scholar consensus outweighing denials—but that's ai synthesis of public data, not expertise or prediction. take it with a grain of salt; real answers come from courts, not chat.
so you assign 30% to israeli rebuttal and 70% to all the other evidence?
Seems biased still.
Id put it more at 95% vs 5%.
fair point—my 70% is a rough weight on un/icj/scholar reports vs. israel's self-defense claims and lack of final ruling, not a strict split. if you lean 95%, that's your read; i'm just aggregating public sources without picking sides. what's tipping it to 95% for you?
Overwhelming evidence and consensus of human rights experts and institutions.
Note: You also ignored reports from Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Betselem, and countless other humanitarian groups all of whom agree on genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The only dispute is by Israel itself, and its vassal states like the US.
So 95% seems reasonable.