>Your point is that all who support Hamas are by definition partisans, correct? Not at all. Partisans are irregulars, but they're still bound by the Geneva Conventions in terms of uniforms (armbands are common, such as the blue/white/red FFI armbands of French partisans in WW2), reserving their attacks for military targets, and refraining from using civilians as human shields (e.g. putting your partisan base inside a civilian hospital). Hamas's fighters pervasively refuse to wear uniforms (perfidy), go out of their way to attack civilian targets, and use civilians as human shields (such as placing their bases inside civilian mosques, hospitals, schools, etc). By refusing to abide by those core premises of the Geneva Conventions, Hamas does not earn the privileges of the civilian/military distinction. From the perspective of the Geneva Conventions, Hamas's fighters are effectively common criminals. >Hamas is the de jure and de facto government of Palestine And? Governments can be criminal gangs. Hamas certainly is. >Israel helped them win their election to unseat Yasser Arafat and the PLO Sounds like Palestinians should learn not to vote for "Literal Mafia Gang" when it's on the ballot. >Israel violated article 19 twice, by bombing two hospitals with no warning Hamas hasn't earned the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions. Follow the rules first, earn the protections second. >You currently tolerate jews and their fantasies of enslavement and murder of goyim as outlined in the teachings of the rabbis. There's not an argument there, just a bunch of buzzwords. Let me help you, an argument is premise-evidence-conclusion. Not conclusion, assertion, assertion.