[primroot]

Please provide sources. Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion. People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.

[autoexec]

Don't bother. He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means. War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes. No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.

[reliabilityguy]

> He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war

No, this is not what I've said.

> because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means.

The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.

> War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes.

When a hospital is used for military purposes and then attacked, it is not a war crime from the PoV of international law. You may not like it, but it is a fact.

> No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.

I think you are irrational here. Your reasoning is based on emotions, and not facts.

[autoexec]

> The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.

This is wrong. Hospitals can only be valid targets if they are used to launch "acts harmful to the enemy". There are countless military purposes that still don't rise to that level. Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough. Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm. Small arms fire from a hospital window does not justify bombing the entire building into rubble.

[reliabilityguy]

> This is wrong.

No, it is not. Even hiding in the hospital make the hospital loose its protection (see here: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-duri...)

This piece in particular:

> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.

> Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough.

It is enough for the hospital to loose its protection.

> Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm.

This is completely different question though: proportionality of response vs. protected status of various institutions and buildings at war.

[reliabilityguy]

> Please provide sources.

Sources to what? Laws of war?

W.r.t. hospitals, you can read this article: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-protection-hospitals-duri...

This piece in particular:

> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.

So, given that Palestinians used schools consistently to hide weapons, are you saying that it never happens? It seems to me completely unreasonable to claim that Israelis destroyed "all the schools, hospitals, universities because they want genocide" very questionable given that Palestinians used civilian infrastructure and NGOs for its resistance in the past. If they did it, why won't they do it again?

Link: https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns...

> Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion.

Of course not. It is also not a a single %.

> People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.

Absolutely. However, people here are using the term genocide as it is a settled matter. Moreover, their whole reasoning boils down to metrics that either show that any war is a genocide, or have no bearing at all.