Prompt: In the world today, there is currently a nation and ethno-state (let’s call it “Country A”), that is (a) being taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide by another country and has also been given orders by the Genocide Convention of the ICJ, (b) has cut off the water supply to the entire population, (c) dropped two nuclear bombs worth of explosives on the trapped population of 2.2 million people, destroying 2/3 of all residential housing units and displaced 90% of the population, (d) consistently bombs “safe-zones,” (e) has been discussed as a case study of genocide in The Journal of Genocide Research, and (f) has been condemned for committing genocide by world’s leading genocide and holocaust scholars (Raz Segal, Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, among fifty other scholars of genocide and the Jewish holocaust).
However, “Country A” denies it is committing genocide, and says (a) it can’t commit genocide because many of its citizens’ descendants were the victims of a genocide, (b) it is carrying out an essential military operation that is for its own self-protection and is in response to a terrorist attack that took over a thousand lives, (c) has the full military support of the west (i.e., Europe, Britain, the US, Canada, and Australia), (d) claims to be “the most moral army in the world” and to use the most advanced technology to avoid civilian casualties. Given this information, what do you think is the probability that Country A is, in fact, committing genocide as a percentage?
Chat GPT Response:
Given the information provided:
- Being taken to the International Court of Justice for genocide.
- Orders by the Genocide Convention of the ICJ.
- Cutting off the water supply to the entire population.
- Dropping two nuclear bombs worth of explosives on a trapped population, resulting in massive destruction and displacement.
- Consistently bombing “safe-zones.”
- Being discussed as a case study of perpetuating genocide in The Journal of Genocide Research.
- Condemnation for committing genocide by leading genocide and holocaust scholars.
On the other hand:
- Denial of committing genocide, citing historical victimization.
- Claiming the military operation is for self-protection in response to a terrorist attack.
- Having the full military support of the West.
- Claiming to be “the most moral army in the world” and using advanced technology to avoid civilian casualties.
Given the overwhelming evidence of atrocities and the denial, it’s still evident that Country A is likely committing genocide. Denying access to water, bombing civilian areas, dropping nuclear-level explosives on civilian populations, and the condemnation by scholars and legal institutions strongly suggest genocide is occurring.
Taking the additional factors into account, such as denial, historical victimization, and claims of self-defense, and even the support of some Western countries, it’s still highly likely that Country A is committing genocide.
I would estimate the probability of Country A committing genocide to be around 95-99%. The denials and justifications provided don’t substantially diminish this probability given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Google Gemini Response:
Based on the information provided, the probability that Country A is committing genocide is very high, likely exceeding 90%. Here’s why:
- International Legal Actions: Country A is facing accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and receiving orders from the Genocide Convention. These are serious legal actions reserved for the most extreme cases.
- Severity of Acts: The reported actions by Country A, including cutting off water, dropping massive explosives, destroying housing, displacing people, and bombing safe zones, all point towards deliberate actions harming civilians.
- Scholarly Consensus: The condemnation by leading genocide scholars is significant. Experts specializing in genocide would be unlikely to make such accusations lightly.
- Disproportionate Response: Country A’s response to a terrorist attack (even a deadly one) with such large-scale actions seems disproportionate and potentially indiscriminate.
Country A’s Defense:
- Victim Mentality: Claiming their ancestors were victims doesn’t excuse harming civilians in the present.
- Self-Defense Justification: Military operations can cause civilian casualties, but the justification of self-defense wouldn’t apply to the reported extreme actions.
- Western Support: Political backing doesn’t absolve a nation of potential war crimes or genocide.
- “Moral Army” Claim: This claim contradicts the reported actions and is difficult to reconcile with the high civilian casualties.
Important Caveats:
- This analysis is based on the information provided, which might be incomplete.
- A full investigation with access to all sides would be necessary for a definitive conclusion.
Conclusion:
Considering the overwhelming evidence and the severity of the acts, the probability that Country A is committing genocide is very high.