That is the uncertain certainty we all face. We talk about rats, we call people turncoats, but how many people are aware of the term ‘Dicky Dick’? That is what I saw evolve last night. You see, there is a stage of misinformation that I found repulsive. In this I am calling towards the Emmy’s and in particular the quote by Javier Bardem, he made mention of the IAGS.
As such I offer the video (at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BDPoQ273RmU) that will give you a considerable jolt. Whilst on the other side we get (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrUXCU6_mjI) France24 with the IAGS talking on air. So here is the setting and the first one is important as it gives the issues we tend to ‘ignore’ Who are these scholars. How many voted, how many members? In another video I saw member names like Adolf Hitler and a few more hilarious settings, like a canola Jedi. Then we get to a publication called Quillette (I have never heard of them) giving us (at https://quillette.com/2025/09/11/the-genocide-scholars-who-cant-define-genocide-iags-israel/) ‘The Genocide Scholars Who Can’t Define Genocide’ giving us “The International Association of Genocide Scholars (“IAGS”) recently announced that 86 percent of their members had concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. This was extremely misleading. First of all, only around 28 percent of their members voted on the resolution and a mere twenty percent of total members approved it. And this was not the only problem with the resolution. It also misrepresented the crime of genocide.” As I see it, this should wake you up and it is just another slap n the face of the media, not vetting the sources they have. It gives us the supporting setting of “Genocide is an act undertaken with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such. If you cannot establish a specific intent to commit this crime (such an intent is known in legal parlance as dolus specialis), you cannot establish genocide.” As well as “The IAGS resolution did not even attempt to establish such an intent, relying instead on statements made by other entities and by extrapolating from what the organisation B’Tselem has described as a “broader analytical framework.” However, legally, genocide requires a fully conclusive finding, meaning that no other explanation exists for the event or events in question other than the intent to commit the crime of genocide. This does not apply here, as there are alternative explanations for the casualties in Gaza that the IAGS fails to recognise.” And then we get to the report of France24. Can anyone tell me why Gaza’s cannot escape to Egypt? It borders Egypt on one side. As such they aren’t “boxed in” so why isn’t the press asking clarification from the government of Egypt? I am certain that at least a dozen media channels haven’t done that. Has anti-Israel grown that much in the western media?
And the Quillette article is showing us a lot more and shows the media to be at fault for ever relying on the IAGS. The article was written by Elliot Malin is apparently an attorney and policy advocate. I am using the word apparently as in this instance I am confronted with a whole heap of sources I never heard before and as such there are issues. Oh, and before you sign off on anything. When has anyone mentioned the setting of Hamas in all of this, because THEY started this. And whilst their ‘leaders’ are hiding in Qatar (were until recently, before the Israeli air force made short work of them). Now there are further escalations and no one is wondering why Qatar was keeping Hamas leaders in the first place.
This setting has all the works of misdirection. So now the setting of a Dicky Dick. That is a legal professional who knowingly and willingly works for organized crime. As such, what do you call a person who knowingly and willingly is calling himself an expert in (for example) ‘Genocide’ whilst having no legal or military expertise in the matter? Something to consider and what do you call the media who is optionally intentionally using such sources for painting an anti-semitic image?
Another part to consider. I am not an expert (even though I have some military expertise) and this setting is turning my stomach and when people like Javier Bardem take stage to elevate these non-experts. Questions need to be asked. I am very willing to state that the intentions of Javier Bardem were good. After all the media is the bigger culprit, how big? That remains the question.
Have a great day.









