And bombing of Dresden[1] and dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of that would be considered war crimes using the law that was created after world war II but unfortunately not before:

> The Hague Conventions, addressing the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power. Despite repeated diplomatic attempts to update international humanitarian law to include aerial warfare, it was not updated before the outbreak of World War II.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden

Hamas could absolutely wear uniforms too. But they couldn't hide behind civilians anymore then and that's their preferred tactic.

There's a reason one of the most important parts of modern international law on wars - which has the primary goal of minimizing civilian deaths - is that all combatants have to be clearly identifiable. If you cannot distinguish easily between both, war gets even worse than it already is. And the current conflict is the perfect example.

What do you suggest the US should have done? Did you look up war crimes Japan did in the rest of the world? Should the US have just let them roll over Asia and rest of the world? During the war, all cities that could be attacked were attacked.

Throughout history, wars were fought between inequal sides. Only a very few times did combatants hide among civilians.

> You already lost the war, not like you have any leverage.

How? Look up when Japan surrendered.

> that’s the cool part about being the hegemon: you get to wear uniforms while doing your atrocities, and you have tanks and planes and ambassadors wielding real power at the UN to prevent consequences.

Don't nearly all Muslim countries and a majority of the UN support Palestine? Aren't China/Russia on Palestine's side? Is there an UNRWA for the rest of the world? UN leans heavily towards Palestine and a ton of wealth supports them. Aren't Hamas's leaders billionaires?

https://nypost.com/2023/11/07/news/hamas-leaders-worth-11bn-...