Yeah, you seem to be missing the whole “being taken hostage in a hospital” part. You lose your international protection. Sorry bro, I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe don’t take hostages — weird concept, I know.
the point is that literally the only scenario in which it makes sense for the idf to blow up that university is if they're attempting to destroy infrastructure. i don't know how you're not seeing that?
Because it doesn’t matter. Blowing up an empty university building cannot be genocide. Your logic would mean genocide occurs if a small bush is blown up, so long as they wanted to destroy infrastructure. That’s not even remotely the definition of genocide.
Because genocide has a specific definition
another comedy quote
Imagine thinking genocide, expressly defined by the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, doesn’t have a specific meaning lmfao.
maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension, because i was pretty obviously referring to the un definition you've been citing until now not the jstor article that was made irrelevant by a later ruling clarifying what they'd misinterpreted
Weird, looks like the academic article I cited also cites the UN definition of genocide — which, by the way, you just said is “comedy” (weird take my guy).
Hamas has expressly stated that they want to eliminate the whole of Israel.
"whole or in part" is not satisfied.
That’s some mental gymnastics if I’ve ever seen it.
because what you've cited so far is: a source that disagrees with you
“Indeed, all of the elements for these crimes are satisfied in the September 11 attacks.” Pretty sure that’s my position sweetie.
a source that is rendered invalid by additional information in the first source
Hm, looks like both the first source and the “additional information” have the same definition of genocide.
Thanks for the laughs here I guess. It’s always a good time to find some thinly disguised Hamas simp trying to apply international law, lol.