> foreign book's classification of genocide

Why can't they just use their own? Seems silly. Not sure this makes sense.

Then it's not genocide by any definition anyone else uses. I don't see what the confusion is.

Well they don’t have to agree with all of it. The Geneva convention is (primarily) an agreement between parties that “we’ll follow these rules so we don’t end up killing civilians and razing cities to the ground”. When the opposing side is doing that, what good does it do you to say “but under subsection 17 b of paragraph 11…”

> When the opposing side is doing that, what good does it do you to say “but under subsection 17 b of paragraph 11…”

Remaining the "good guys"?

Of course not. It’s just as wrong for Palestinians to attack Israeli civilians as it is for Israelis to attack Palestinian civilians. If you review this whole thread, you have folks defending Israel, you have folks defending Palestine.

The only difference is that Israel is capable of genocide militarily, and is levelling Palestinian cities.

There are no good guys here.

Because genocide is defined by wholesale targeting of civilians, but if the opposing side uses civilians as human shields then that definition can no longer be applied.