I’d call it a single act. Perhaps it’s just my lack of understanding of the term, but I believe that unless it’s a systematic campaign to wipe out an entire group, and/or displacing them from a particular region. But as @Arminius points out, that’s inconsistent with international law as it is right now.
I’d rather not listen to news reports but look at the facts.
Well yes listening to a survivor’s account is always painful…
This is the definition from the Convention:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2
Did you kill members of a group because they are part of the group?
Did you intend to destroy that group in part?
That’s it, that’s all. Intent, not capacity, and with the ‘part’ element the standard becomes even smaller. Granted, I think the ‘part’ has to be in there to capture crimes like ethnic cleansing.
I can’t speak for others, but I’d hold a terrorist organisation to a different standard from a purportedly democratically-elected government.
Everyone knows Hamas wants to eradicate Israel, and would if they could. But the Israeli government is supposed to be a more responsible entity than that.
I’m not saying that this is either right or wrong, but that’s the way it is.
And also adds a lot of emotion to cloud one’s judgment.
I don’t need a story to tell me that the mass, indiscriminate slaughter of 1,400 people is not right, or just.
Right, but those same UN organizations have been taking the stand that Hamas is more than a terrorist organization for nearly a generation. Hamas is the government of Gaza, and a partner with the UN agencies there - and it derives a massive portion of its operating budget from direct transfers. They cannot have it both ways, Hamas is not in the same category as Hezbollah, ISIS, or al-Qaeda by their own insistence.
Genuinely don’t understand what you’re getting at. Can you name a single organisation that hasn’t condemned Hamas actions of 7 October?
There was widespread, international condemnation, and rightly so. The difference is that Israel are being armed and supported by UK, US and EU.
Tbh I’m fucking sick of seeing ‘but what about Hamas?’ after every example of Israel slaughtering babies and children, as if that in anyway justifies it
While the use of WP is indeed appalling, it is irritating that Amnesty International is demanding an investigation that is by definition is out of scope and would likely fail - in part due to definitions AI itself has complained about.
Israel is not a signatory to Protocol III (Incendiary Weapons), and Amnesty International is entirely aware of that. It is also aware of the process that led to Israel not being a party to that protocol
The Protocol has two loopholes that AI has criticized, but seems to have forgotten. Firstly, ground-launched (those were artillery shells) are in fact permitted in some circumstances. It is only air-launched that are an absolute proscription. Secondly, the use for smoke shells is allowed. Those are very clearly smoke shells. Revision of that is in fact supposed to be discussed this month in a meeting of the parties.
You could have stopped there
What I am getting at is not condemnation of October 7. It really doesn’t matter. What I am referring to is the obligation that Hamas has today to minimize civilian casualties. It is a two-way obligation under international law.
The entire Gaza Strip is being bombed, including the part they said was safe, and the journey to the ‘safe’ place. Densely populated with 2.2 millions people who aren’t allowed to leave. 50% of homes are now rubble. What would you expect them to do?
For a start, not use civilians as human shields?
That’s been going on since 2005 when Israel first blockaded Gaza and said they were going to ‘put the Palestinians on a diet’. It also precedes Hamas’ takeover of the strip.
If you want to describe an entire refugee camp, or a hospital, or a mosque, or a christian church as a ‘shield’, then ok
A force that has no prospect of victory and cannot continue to fight without causing disproportionate civilian casualties can have an obligation to surrender. They certainly can have an obligation to release hostages.
The corollary to ‘Israel killed 50 civilians in targeting a Hamas chief and ~8 of his fighters in a refugee camp’ is that that chief was sheltering in the midst of a crowded refugee camp.
Are there any rules by which you see it morally/legally acceptable for Israel to be attacking Hamas forces?
and Israel’s treatment of Gaza at the very least meets test b) as well. My point was simply that the convention does not have a capacity/means element to the tests.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but I’m not referencing those incidents, which are appalling conduct by Israel. I’m talking about the other situations.
If Hamas had the capability of doing the same to a Kibbutz full of innocent people, just to get an IDF commander, would you also justify this
You honestly think that’s what’s happening in Gaza? If the British army destroyed half of the buildings in NI, killing hundreds of children per day, to attack the IRA, would you justify this?
Finding it hard not to respond emotionally so going to bow out for a bit. Peace 
Isn’t that precisely what they did?
Selective quoting. That’s not what he said.