Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
in whole or in part. Not that you care, just for anybody wondering what the Geneva convention says. Though people should not base their morality on law, even UN law.
Which is why Hamas who is intentionally co-locating (and the target of the attacks) in what would otherwise be protected targets is a war crime.
If Hamas was not using civilian shields and being aided by the majority of Gaza residents who support them, then absolutely it would be a war crime.
It's just that unlike many armchair legal scholars here, I'm aware that the intended terrorist targets make this a nonsense legal argument. Again, without Hamas there you'd be correct.
The convention isn't written in a vacuum. And misusing and diminishing the term genocide a bad idea.
being aided by the majority of Gaza residents who support them
"It's not genocide, but if it is they deserve it"
Fucking disgusting Nazi logic.
Stating a fact that's not convenient to your false narrative: "you're a Nazi". I realize there are people here who can not reason or be reasoned with---its sad.
Stating a fact that's not convenient to your false narrative
Which fact? That Gaza civilians deserve to be slaughtered because of their alleged support of Hamas?
Honestly who are you trying to convince here?
no, collective punishment by genocide is about as Nazi as you get, then again, no wonder you got upset at it, you don't even view "brown people" as human, they are all Terrorists, every Gaza Child is nothing but another terrorist, so why not kill them?
The genocide of Palestinians by Israel has been going on way longer than Hamas has existed.
I am no armchair legal scholar, I 've already argued against placing too much value on legality. It is you on the other hand who tries to minimize the severity of Israel's wrongdoings by arguing pseudo-legalistic semantics.
If the 1948 convention never existed, Israel's actions would be just as reprehensible.
in whole or in part. Not that you care, just for anybody wondering what the Geneva convention says. Though people should not base their morality on law, even UN law.
Which is why Hamas who is intentionally co-locating (and the target of the attacks) in what would otherwise be protected targets is a war crime.
If Hamas was not using civilian shields and being aided by the majority of Gaza residents who support them, then absolutely it would be a war crime.
It's just that unlike many armchair legal scholars here, I'm aware that the intended terrorist targets make this a nonsense legal argument. Again, without Hamas there you'd be correct.
The convention isn't written in a vacuum. And misusing and diminishing the term genocide a bad idea.
"It's not genocide, but if it is they deserve it"
Fucking disgusting Nazi logic.
Stating a fact that's not convenient to your false narrative: "you're a Nazi". I realize there are people here who can not reason or be reasoned with---its sad.
Which fact? That Gaza civilians deserve to be slaughtered because of their alleged support of Hamas?
Honestly who are you trying to convince here?
no, collective punishment by genocide is about as Nazi as you get, then again, no wonder you got upset at it, you don't even view "brown people" as human, they are all Terrorists, every Gaza Child is nothing but another terrorist, so why not kill them?
The genocide of Palestinians by Israel has been going on way longer than Hamas has existed.
I am no armchair legal scholar, I 've already argued against placing too much value on legality. It is you on the other hand who tries to minimize the severity of Israel's wrongdoings by arguing pseudo-legalistic semantics.
If the 1948 convention never existed, Israel's actions would be just as reprehensible.