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.
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.
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.
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.