All: if you're going to comment in this thread, please do not do so in the spirit of battle. The latter is off topic here, and the last thread HN had about this did not do well enough at keeping to the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Instead, ask first whether you can find a place of compassion in yourself before commenting. If you can't, that's understandable, but then please don't post. By compassion I mean something more spacious than angry identification.
I'm not saying that this is the purpose of HN (we're not aiming quite that high) but I do think it's the only way to touch a topic like this without destroying that purpose, which is thoughtful, curious conversation. It may be nearly impossible to relate to such a topic from such a place, but nearly != entirely, and it's part of HN's mandate to try. Consider this an experiment, or perhaps an advanced exercise, in community.
As someone on the Israeli left I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place- I do not condone Netanyahu and his government and am indeed very critical of Israeli governments of the past decades. But on the other side, my 78 year old mother is fleeing to shelter every couple hours as my hometown (not anywhere near the west bank or the Gaza strip) gets hit by rockets, as do my young nieces and nephews, some of which developed psychological issues from the stress. And the stories from what people experienced on the October 7th attacks wrench my gut.
At the same time I'm also sorry for the Palestinians suffering during this war, the vast majority of them civilians. I wish instead of people treating it like a football match where you to support "your side", they could process the nuance of opposing any violence towards civilians and support peace (with the goal of a two state solution with Israel and Palestine co-existing according to the 1967 borders and UN resolution 242).
IMO this would require that both Netanyahu and Hamas do not stay in power.
I've been in touch with several Israeli HNers who are in much the same position as you describe, and I admire their, and your, capacity to stay open despite being under orders of magnitude more pressure than most of us here. This is the spirit I'm asking for commenters to find in themselves before posting.
(Edit: Lest this seem like an expression of bias: I've been in touch with HNers on the other side of the conflict as well and can say similar things about them.)
> I've been in touch with HNers on the other side of the conflict as well
This thinking kind of reinforces what you're trying to stay away from. There are not just 'two sides' to this. And I'm not sure what you would envision as an HNer from the "other side": someone in support of Hamas? In support of the Palestinian people?
I'm only commenting here because I think the bias you fear expressing can still kind of appear in different ways.
I really do appreciate the approach you're taking here with attempting to allow for curious and thoughtful discussion about contemporary topics while being cognizant of the dangers.
You're of course right that there are many more than two sides to the topic, but there's a strong tendency for users (being human) to identify with one or the other side in this war, and that's what I was referring to. I take your point that my wording was unclear there, and even a grain of unclarity is pretty dangerous in this context.
My experience with this conflict has been that people have had to specifically demonstrate that there are more than two sides to this. Support for the Palestinian people or being against large-scale bombing does not mean one supports Hamas.
Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN and NBC News describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN).
There are two sides - ordinary people on both sides, who mostly just want it all to stop, and the leaders on both sides, who want it to continue. (As do arms dealers.)
The ordinary people have far more in common with each other than they do with the leaders who are keeping this war running.
60% of surveyed Palestinians “extremely supported” the military actions on Jan 7, an additional 15% somewhat supported. This was research done by Palestinians based locally.
There is a lot of hopeful thinking about humanity being conjured out of thin air, evidence on the ground is to the contrary. Many people on the ground support the conflict and expect to win. A great majority of Palestinians supported the attacks in January. A great majority of Israelis insist on a military response taken to its conclusion.
This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
Consider that asking about support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing, especially when a portion of those polled were in the war zone.
Now consider the extent to which provoking this kind of reaction was Hamas' goal in light of polls showing people wanting them out in a situation where their legitimacy as a political leadership kept dropping with each year without another election.
> This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
After this? Maybe. Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above. Which might make one want to ask why the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction and what that says about the extent to which they want peace, because given the sharp but predictable changes in polling this reaction is clearly entirely counter-productive.
>support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing
In September 2022 armed struggle was the most popular option for resolving the situation, support for that went up in Sept 2023. [1]
"32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
Palestinians don't like their governments, this does not mean they would have governments that acted substantially differently. Support for violence is widespread and predates the Oct 7 attacks and Israeli response.
> Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above.
The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
> In September 2022 armed struggle was the most popular option for resolving the situation, support for that went up in Sept 2023. [1]
The change is well within the margin of error given the poll size. It is also a question that does not in any way tease out how many of those support atrocities like the Hamas attacks vs. legal and legitimate armed resistance of an occupied population against the occupier (Israel is still considered an occupier by both the UN and EU due to the extent of their control). As such it's not relevant in response to the sentence of mine you quoted.
The other survey asked a very different question, specifically on views on the cease-fire specifically in Gaza. If we're going to compare polls that ask entirely different questions, it's far more reasonable to interpret that as directly contradictory to support for those kinds of attacks prior to the Israeli retaliation than it is to assume abstract support for armed struggle as a long-term means to solve the conflict as a whole implies support for a specific kind of action.
As it is, I stand by my claim that you can't meaningfully say anything about the pre-Israeli retaliation views on attacks of the type Hamas carried out when interviewing a population that at that point had been subject to a full-scale invasion, extensive bombing, and many thousands dead.
What we can say something about is about the specific questions people were asked in surveys, none of which to my knowledge included questions about large terror attacks on civilians.
> "32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
"which was presented to the public without providing details of the solution" is key here. The poll I linked got 50% for “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” A key part of the problem with asking open-ended about a two-state solution is that it forces people to impose their own idea of what that would mean in terms of borders and concessions from each side. E.g. if you were to ask about a two-state solution that involves Israel maintaining control over their illegal settlements in the West Bank, you're certainly likely to get far more opposition than the poll I linked.
As such what the difference in numbers tells us is just that the exact form of a two-state solution would have a significant impact on the potential for it to lead to peace.
> The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
I did not suggest they did. It showed people wanted Hamas out, and replaced by the PA, and wanted them to give up their independent armed units, as I stated. The statement people were asked to agree or disagree with was "The PA should send officials and security officers to Gaza, to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up its separate armed units"
Not wanting to give up all violence for an occupied population is unsurprising - it'd be far more surprising if most of a population of which the vast majority was born after the Oslo accords were signed yet has seen no signs of progress would believe in negotiation. It'd also be entirely unreasonable to demand of an occupied population to want to give up their legal right to armed resistance.
There is, however, a vast chasm between legitimate armed struggle and indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Overreaction is the mildest thing I'd call it. It's an ongoing series of brutal war crimes, and if it's true that the reaction is considered spot-on that does not make it more justified.
At the same time, it is a demonstration of exactly why this reaction is counter-productive, because you can expect that exact same anger to grow in a Palestinian population where the vast majority had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have ever voted for - or even had a chance to vote for - Hamas (~80% of the current population of Gaza were either not born or not of voting age when Hamas won a minority of the vote), and who before this wanted Hamas out. Expect to see a massive resurgence in support for Hamas and even more extreme groups, and the net outcome being to have made Israel's security situation significantly worse.
It has also massively damaged support and sympathy for Israel internationally. E.g. many political forums I'm in used to see it as distasteful or too extreme to describe Israel as an apartheid state just a couple of years ago, while it is a widely supported view today, and the Israeli reaction is regularly described as ethnic cleansing with little opposition to the use of that term.
Put another way: Hamas has gotten exactly what it wanted out of this, and Israel has harmed its case and harmed its security massively.
If I were to make a prediction, it would be that unless Israel massively changes direction very quickly, the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks will contribute to making resistance to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement start to crumble.
What I meant is that "overreaction" is a subjective term. From perspective of an average Israely (again, my subjective observation) it's not "over" reaction.
So
> the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction
From Israely leadership perspective it's NOT an overreaction, so it IS easy.
And in general "overreaction" is too emotionally charged. What would be an adequate reaction? Send us your X women we'll rape them? How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
It is irrelevant to the point I made that the average Israeli doesn't see it as overraction or that the leadership doesn't. The point is that they're demonstrating that they're either to dumb to realise what Hamas intent was (goading them into brutal violence to whip up support for further violence against Israel in return), or they're not interested in stopping the violence.
And as I point out "overreaction" was the mildest term I'd consider using. Emotionally charged would be to call it mass murder and ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. An adequate reaction would be not to brutally murder civilians and carry out extensive war crimes.
> How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
By lack of adherence to international law. By any willingness to cause mass murder and engage in ethnic cleansing.
At the very least, by the time the IDF response had led to the murder of more civilians than the attack of terrorists they are hunting, they ought to consider that it is no more morally acceptable for them to murder civilians than the other side, and they've become what they claim to want to destroy.
That doesn't answer my question, what would be an adequate reaction to more than thousand civilians brutally murdered, raped, etc? What Israel should've done as response that you would consider adequate for all sides, Palestinians, Israelis, and international community?
It's not my job to solve a problem successive Israeli governments created by their decades of violations of international law. Maybe they can't find something they consider an "adequate reaction" that doesn't involve mass murder and ethnic cleansing. That doesn't make those legitimate, or moral, or legal. That is a problem of their own making.
Consider that if it was reasonable for Israel to murder many times more civilians in response to a Hamas attack on civilians, it would be equally reasonable for Palestinians to murder many times more Israeli civilians than that again in response to the IDF attack on Palestinian civilians.
But nobody have an inherent right to a reaction they consider fair, if that reaction involves brutally violating the rights of innocent third parties.
It's no less terror when the IDF kills innocent civilians than when Hamas does, and seeking to legitimise it is no less immoral.
OK. But you do say what Israel shouldn't do, and at the same time, you can't provide any alternative solution. That's a really convenient position. I don't think doing nothing is an option here, so Israel does what the electorate expects it to do, that's what I meant in my comment about overreaction.
Also, I'm not sure who you mean by "they". Let's talk about specific people: past governments are mostly dead, current generation was born into this situation the same as Palestinians were born into theirs. "They" (current Israeli population) can't end the occupation; there are no feasible options. So what "they" should do in case a neighboring nation kills a thousand of "them"? Again, these people have nothing to do with occupation. The kids at that rave party most likely considered themselves as far left (just given the demographics). I myself am far left; I'm a part of "them", and I'm against the occupation, but no one is able to come up with a solution that would satisfy both sides.
So when you talk about "them", whom do you mean? Who'd you expect would find a solution if you can't even solve this smaller moral dilemma of what your country's response should be in case of Oct. 7?
edit: like, how can you overreact if no one can say what "non-over" reaction should be?
Sorry I think you got confused there by the unclear question in the report. The survey was conducted on 6th of October, one day before the Hamas attack (that's written on the report page). So "this war" can not mean that attack or the Israeli counterattack but probably the decade long conflict.
Also the survey shows people have very low trust in organisations, including Hamas.
The second link they posted is about [1], which was conducted well into the retaliation. So while it is clearly about the October 7 attack, it's also clearly massively affected by the feelings about the counter-attack.
From the article you quote, 51% of Gaza supported a 2 state solution, 75% face food insecurity, only 23% had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in Hamas, 52% had no trust at all in Hamas, most said their freedom of speech is limited or not free at all. Per the Washington Institute, 70% wanted PA to take over Gaza from Hamas in July 2023.
In regards to the 60% you quote, the question was framed as
"How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?"
Given the majority of Gaza has trouble accessing the news/electricity, 95% don't trust Israel's news (in the same survey), what they know about Oct 7 is not what we know about Oct 7. Whether you and I believe it or not, there are plenty who think all the targets on Oct 7 were military, any atrocities are fake news, etc. And for a people suffering under blockade for 16 years, including a year of weekly peaceful protests in 2018-2019 that were repeatedly met with violence by the IDF (~200 killed, thousands maimed/disabled), living in slums with little to no electricity [1], seeing their lives deteriorate year after year as the world has forgotten them - it would not be surprising at all for them to support a "military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance."
Furthermore, we're talking about a survey taken in the midst of war where 46% have lost their homes (same survey you shared), 80% of Gaza is displaced, and all the thousands of civilian and children deaths and tens of thousands of maiming and mutilations etc. Hospitals destroyed. Bakeries and water towers bombed. Journalists and health care workers murdered. ... Unclear how many, but probably all of the population has PTSD; 90% of the children had PTSD back in 2021 [2]. So in that context, in the midst of such immense suffering, the answer to this question should not be surprising at all. It is completely rational.
However, it would not be accurate for us to conflate their answer with supporting atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct 7 (which is not something it seems the survey asked about).
>> Many people on the ground support the conflict
Re: Gaza, the survey you link says 90% "support a ceasefire that includes a mutual cessation of hostilities." So I don't think it's accurate to say the civilians of Gaza support this conflict.
My interpretation of "other side" was "other side of the border", i.e. someone living in Gaza or possibly the West Bank. In that case there are literally two sides (I could cite the Jordan curve theorem?). But that may not have been what dang meant.
I have not lived in Israel for most of the last 20 years, but I do have family and friends there. I also know plenty of both Israelis and Palestinians moderates, but they are unfortunately the small minority on both sides.
I don't think it's fair to say that Israeli moderates are the minority - though that entirely depends on what you mean by "Israeli moderates".
I think the majority do not have any "territorial ambition" and would usually happily agree to a two state solution peace agreement, including giving up the WB, as long as security to Israel was guaranteed.
We are very far from this being realistic because of a lack of leaders on both sides, and because the security guarantees are incredibly hard.
I agree that "Total Security" is never guaranteed, but we're talking many orders of magnitude between the current situation and Total Security.
It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.
> It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed.
It is a true fact of life that many Israelis are killed, as a direct result of the Israeli government's long-term policy of actively assuring that the most violent and extreme Palestinian faction possible is reinforced and strengthened at every turn (starting with its original creation) to maintain internal Palestinian divisions and provide a pretext to deflect domestic and international pressure to make peace.
Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu and I hope (and think) he will pay for it with this being, finally, the end of his political life.
That said, what would've been your alternative? For Israel to refuse to cooperate at all with Hamas the last fifteen years? To prevent them receiving any outside money from Qatar? To not allow any Gazans to work in Israel?
That's what would've needed to happen to "not reinforce Hamas", and I have a feeling that had Israel done that, it would've received more condemnation.
> Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu
While Netanyahu has taken it run with it for quite a while, it actually predates Netanyahu having a significant role related to it, back to the original formation of Hamas, which Israel fostered in Gaza for much the same reason as Netanyahu has repeatedly actively fostered since.
> That said, what would've been your alternative?
Not actively working to antagonize the Palestinian population, disrupt the election campaigns, and make the Fatah-led administration look weak and complicit (by blocking campaigns directly, carrying out a targeted campaign of detention of Palestinian politicians, and directly interfering with ballot distribution and other administration preparations for the vote) as a deliberate strategy to secure a victory by the primary opposition -- Hamas -- in the 2006 Palestinian elections.
Not refusing to cooperate in subsequent PA-Hamas agreed Palestinian elections (where Israeli cooperation is required because numerous voters still live under Israeli administration) to freeze the divided status quo in place, and not cutting off peace talks because of an agreement between the PA and Hamas to form a unity government, hold elections, and participate together in peace negotiations, for the same purpose.
> It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.
October 7th happened under the current approach, to assume it would be at least as bad under a 'guard let down' scenario begs the question. There are two competing factors here - hatred and control. The current regime maintains a fairly high level of control, but doing so engenders more hatred. If anything, I think high control-high hatred may be an attractor in policy space, but probably not a long term good one.
> October 7th happened under the current approach, to assume it would be at least as bad under a 'guard let down' scenario begs the question.
Look, I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking.
Israel left Gaza in 2005. Gaza elected Hamas who have been bombing Israel ever since. The current justification is "because of the blockade". What should Israel do? Not do a blockade and hope that Hamas decides to give up violence after 30 years, despite it promising to do so?
There is just nothing that Israel can reasonably do given that its neighbor insists, rightly or wrongly, that it needs to invade Israel and kill all Israelis. Even if they are 100% right about all the historical injustices they've endured, and everything was 100% Israel's fault - it would still make no sense to "let down our guard", cause the direct result will be the death of multiple thousands of Israelis.
Israel did not leave Gaza, though it made a show of doing so.
> Gaza elected Hamas who have been bombing Israel ever since.
Israel carried out a campaign directly aimed at discrediting Fatah and radicalizing the Palestinian population around the elections, and it paid off exactly as intended, with Hamas not only winning locally in Gaza, but an overall legislative majority.
Israel has also acted to preserve the status quo they acheived in that election by obstructing subsequent planned all-Palestine elections.
> What should Israel do? Not do a blockade and hope that Hamas decides to give up violence after 30 years, despite it promising to do so?
So what is your plan then? Keep millions of people in perpetual prison for all eternity? Because that's more or less what "blockade of Gaza" entails.
It's important to emphasise just how small the Gaza strip is: roughly the size of Dublin (smaller if you exclude fairly large "forbidden zones" near the wall). No city that size can be self-sufficient, it's physically impossible. Gaza is set up to fail. Not intentionally as part of some plan, but that doesn't change the fact of it.
Hamas has hinted at some moderation over the years such as recognising Israel's right to exist, and they have basically been ignored or rebuffed at every turn. Israel hasn't even tried with Hamas. They just said "fuck these elections" in 2005 and that was that.
I intently dislike Hamas, but Hamas is the reality that exists, so it's what you'll have to deal with. Simply giving up and saying "well, Hamas are a bunch of religious nutjobs, so we're not even going to try" is a huge part of why things have escalated in the first place. Note how Hamas-levels of extremism doesn't have wide-spread support among the Palestinians on the west bank.
If you grew up in Gaza and are in your 20s now then you hardly remember a time before the blockade. What do you expect from the people of Gaza? After a life-time of desperation for them to come to an epiphany and lay down all protest and adopt carefully nuanced language in the hope that Israeli politicians will give them more freedom? All of that in spite of religious nutjobs currently in government who support Jewish mass-murderers and have expressed views that are just as extreme as Hamas and are nothing short of genocidal? That is just as naïve, if not more so, than expecting Hamas to immediately come to their senses after lifting the blockage.
Hamas has blood on its hands, absolutely, but the idea that Israeli are poor victims who have never done anything wrong is just dead wrong.
> So what is your plan then? Keep millions of people in perpetual prison for all eternity? Because that's more or less what "blockade of Gaza" entails.
First of all, I don't think that's an accurate characterization of life in Gaza. They're not literally in prison, their conditions aren't great (at all!) but definitely not the terrible conditions that that image conjures up.
> Hamas has blood on its hands, absolutely, but the idea that Israeli are poor victims who have never done anything wrong is just dead wrong.
I absolutely agree, Israel has not done anywhere near enough to improve conditions in Gaza and seek peace, especially in the last 15 or so years.
But you asked my plan - I'm far from being knowledgeable enough to answer that, but here's what I think the general outline should be:
1. Destroy Hamas. At this point, given the damage they've done, to Israelis, to their own citizens, and to the peace process - this is a must-do. Not sure what this means in practice, but probably need to capture or kill enough of their leaders to make them unable to continue operating as an organization.
2. Someone else needs to step in and help manage Gaza. The US thinks a bolstered PA can do this - Netanyahu claims this won't work, and Palestinians mostly dislike the PA. So I'm not sure who can fill this role in practice, but someone
needs to do it. (I trust Biden a lot more than Netanyahu, btw).
As an aside, I think Israel should help rebuild Gaza, somehow, and help the people now stranded without a home. No idea how to do this in practice (I doubt anyone will be happy with Israeli contractors literally building buildings in Gaza, and don't think that'll be safe), but it's the moral thing to do.
3. Start making concrete steps towards peace. Start dismantling settlements, and find ways to bolster Palestinian voices for peace (instead of the reverse, which is what has happened over the last 15 years). Find other ways that improve the lives of Palestinians while maintaining Israeli security, I'm sure there are lots of ways that can be done.
4. Start a peace process. Any peace process, with anyone credible enough to do it. Israel cannot morally "give up" on peace, even if the Palestinians are currently unwilling to seek peace.
That's what I think should happen. I have very little faith this will actually happen though, except for part 1 of that.
> If you grew up in Gaza and are in your 20s now then you hardly remember a time before the blockade. What do you expect from the people of Gaza? After a life-time of desperation for them to come to an epiphany and lay down all protest and adopt carefully nuanced language in the hope that Israeli politicians will give them more freedom?
I expect that, once Hamas is destroyed, many people in Gaza will start speaking up against Hamas and the destruction they brought on their own people. Some Gazans are already saying as much.
Many countries have suffered defeat in war - Germany and Japan are good examples. They didn't all grow up wanting nothing more than violence because of the Allies bombing their countries. They became great allies of the US etc. I don't know why we think that Palestinians can't be the same, given that Israel actually takes concrete steps to repair the terrible damage wrought by this war.
You have no realistic shot at destroying Hamas without addressing the conditions that created it. At "best" you'll create a vacuum filled by another extreme organization using another name.
The only way of destroying what Hamas is, is to start treating Palestinians humanely, and address their grievances so they actually see an alternative might work.
Neither Germany or Japan was subjected to an occupation this lengthy and brutal and expected not to lash out.
> You have no realistic shot at destroying Hamas without addressing the conditions that created it. At "best" you'll create a vacuum filled by another extreme organization using another name.
The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation.
> The only way of destroying what Hamas is, is to start treating Palestinians humanely, and address their grievances so they actually see an alternative might work.
The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false.
> The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation.
The west have had plenty of organizations that did regularly hurt people despite being extensively policed until the conditions that created them were addressed, despite those conditions being far less extreme than full-on apartheid. E.g. take the IRA.
The situation in the West Bank shows it can be contained for some time, and while doing so you'll see the moderate groups' lose support as the situation drags on in favour of more extreme movements unless you actually address the underlying issue. E.g. consider how the support for Fatah has steadily declined on the West Bank, while support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad has massively increased, along with Lion's Den - a group that is only a year old, yet outpolled Fatah in Washington Institute polls earlier this year, and that was formed largely out of disaffection by Fatah's lack of action.
Any belief you'll be able to maintain a state of relative calm without addressing the oppression is a belief that a population of millions will just give up and resign themselves to living under an apartheid regime forever, and that's boundlessly naive.
> The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false.
The populations under their control were not subjected to decades of occupation by an apartheid state, and they imposed themselves from the outside and were the ones to oppress the populations that lived under them. The notion they are comparable is bizarre, and I've never heard anyone say that about them.
I love what you're doing here: you're assuming your argument to be correct, then discussing that assumption. It's ridiculous of course, but pretty hidden. What is currently in place is effectively a 2 country system. That's what "apartheid" means in your post. By that measure, people living on ANY country border, say the Polish-Russian border, or the US-Canada border, are living in "apartheid". I think you'll find that's absurd.
And what you're trying to hide is that you're suggesting as an alternative: a single -muslim- state. In other words, you're trying to hide that you're pushing repression of everyone. Including muslims btw, just ask Iranians or let a Saudi pour you a few (excellent, but WTF strong) coffees, then talk to them about how happy they are with their state. And I think you'll find Saudi are a lot less extreme than Hamas (for one thing they'd never do something as "low" as picking up a gun. That's for peasants)
In other words: the only alternative you're giving for oppressing 2 million people is oppressing 15 million people (15 because Palestinians would also be oppressed under such a system).
And then there's the trap: you perpetuate the leftist "vision" that people start acting more extreme when they don't get 100% what they want. Of course, this only ever applies to leftists and whoever leftists consider victims. It doesn't apply to Israeli, for example. Giving THEM 100% what they want (Palestinians stay on their land, 2 state solution, no more rockets or attacks, cooperation) is not under consideration. They're not victims. It's also trivial to give unending examples of this not being true. But that's not the trap. This is just the one-sidedness of the argument. Of course if you get your one-state solution you don't want to admit you're calling for, it will immediately make 10 million people a LOT more extremist (never mind what will happen when the inevitable happens and Palestinians massacre in Israel again, and I don't mean since Oct 7, I mean like they've always done. Most Israeli ALSO can't leave, so they will do the one thing they can: fight)
But the trap is: Hamas are racial supremacists. They believe they are better, they will win, because they are extremist muslims. That's how their value system works. If they get what they want, your argument is that they will immediately stop extremism. Does this actually happen? Talk to an Iranian, a Sudanese, an Indonesian, a Kashmiri ... did this actually happen? No. When they got what they wanted, they immediately became 10x MORE extremist and attacked.
The one state solution that you hide you're calling for is not a solution to end apartheid. It will make a population of 10 million start an open civil war with a population of 5 million people. It will be a bloodbath, for entirely obvious reasons.
This is the trap: you say the one-state "solution" will solve the problem. Reality is that that solution will make things 100x worse, for everyone, since it will do what it did everywhere else this was tried: unending civil war with incredible amounts of casualties.
You're suggestion is putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
The US and Canada seem to be doing fine. France and Germany. Thailand and Laos (as far as I know). Your statement is vague and does not seem to take into account the actual realities of living in perpetual insecurity.
All of those countries have had terrorist attacks in the last 5 years. While their level of security is generally high, they do not experience total security. You cannot be completely secure without total control or elimination of anyone who might disagree with you.
Of course I accept that some actions are legitimate in some places to achieve a higher level of security for the people, but it always requires careful consideration and is not something for which just any sacrifice can be made without further thought.
You’ve been in touch with Palestinians use HN? Not to seem one-sided, I didn’t realize Gazans had sufficient internet access, let alone food or water, to browse HN.
When I said "HNers on the other side of the conflict" I had in mind users who aren't necessarily Palestinians but have strong identification with their plight. However, it's worth saying that HN has some valued members in Gaza (as well as in the West Bank, of course, and Palestinians in other places). Here's one memorable example:
Someone who knows Dalia has been in touch with us, but at least at that time, they unfortunately had lost contact with her and don't know if she's still alive.
I've been in contact with Palestinians, you may be aware of millions of them living abroad (same as Israelis, like myself) and millions more living in the west bank (the total Palestinian population world-wide numbers 14.3 million, Gaza only houses 2.3M). You don't have to be on ground zero in Gaza to be a Palestinian.
"Internet Access
High-speed Wi-Fi is available throughout the country in homes and in cafes and restaurants throughout the city. Additionally, local banks have publicly available WIFI that can be accessed 24/7 from outside the building. The Wi-Fi is stable and reliable and 3G is also available in the West Bank, Palestine."
Power and Internet are not readily available in Gaza and haven’t been for 2 months. Sure solar and usb charging and satellite communications. I haven’t had a ping from our office since early October though.
I took a few suitcases of clothes to Egypt last week to try to get to the kids of our employees in Gaza, the ones whose existing coats and stuff are in rubble with any toys memories and belongings they had. Getting them through Raffa is not easy.
We're talking about Gaza. This article is about the West Bank, no?
From the article:
> The Wi-Fi is stable and reliable and 3G is also available in the West Bank, Palestine.
> There are shops all around Hebron, including many that are within walking distance from the Excellence Center where travelers can purchase a SIM card and add more minutes to their phone plan.
Worth noting this isn't an absolute position. There are many Gazans posting on Telegram. They have food, water and internet access. But they seem to be the ones shooting at Israel and other Gazans...
Edit: suspiciously this is downvoted suddenly as well as lots of other unrelated posts of mine. Looks like you can't have a responsible discussion on the internet these days...
Also, regarding food and water .. it's not hard to find pictures and reports of thriving markets, cafés, clubs. Materially, I'm pretty sure Gazans are better off than Egyptians.
Of course that doesn't much diminish their grievances which is based on lost land and and lack of freedom of movement.
According to GDP per capita, before the war Gaza was at $3500/year, while Egypt was at $3700/year. Which says that Egyptians are probably better off than Gazans. Even before the problems of the blockade, lack of electricity, and the current disruptions of war conditions.
So no, people in Gaza are not better off than people in Egypt. Though they are closer than I would have guessed.
Let's also not forget the unbearable plight of all Russian HNers, who due to circumstances beyond their control are now isolated from the rest of the world. Many of them suffer greatly and fear for their own lives as Ukrainian drone attacks hit deep into Russian territory. We shouldn't treat this situation as a football match, where people only support "their" side. Instead, peaceful coexistence with both sides fulfilling their obligations according to the Minsk agreements is required.
IMO this would require that both Putin and Zelensky do not stay in power.
Funny, my mother-in-law lives in Russia and describes nothing of this sort of fear.
Young men there do have trouble working internationally. And they do have legitimate fears. But the fears are more along the line of being conscripted and sent to the front lines, and not the rather insignificant risk of drones.
You are drawing some sort of analogy between two dissimilar conflicts. Yet what the analogy precisely entails is totally unstated.
I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some relationship between them but it is very hard to do this when you cannot be bothered to explain in plain English why you think these two conflicts are related and in what manner? What aspects are you referring to?
It can be frustrating when someone tries to make a strong point, but focuses mainly on the flourish and does not actually explain any reasoning -- this doesn't contribute to intellectual exploration since without explaining your reasoning, there is zero chance you can convince any thoughtful person to change their mind.
You might be coming from a good place, but you are word for word posting Kremlin talking points currently being pushed all over the place through their think tanks.
Minsk agreements were impossible to uphold and Russia never attempted to do so from the beginning, it was showed upon then much weaker Ukraine as Ukraine was in no position to defend itself then, it is different now.
Sure, it's satire. My point was that if this article was about how Russian prisons brutalize Ukrainian children, dang probably wouldn't have posted asking for us to show compassion with the perpetrators' side.
I wish more people had your perspective. I see a lot of us politicians who miss this basic human nuance, let's all be against all violence and attacks on civilians - we don't need to both sides it, just humanize our behavior. I think like you state, I want innocents, civilians everywhere on all sides to avoid violence, terrorism, bombings, this seemingly endless horror. I see many us politicians making misleading statements about wanting to say you must support destroying Hamas, and that's all they can say, and they attack people who say we must protect innocent people - and they can't accept any criticism about needing to protect civilians on the Palestinian side.
It's easy to over-react to an attack, and I hope people like you are able to control the reaction. I'm in the US, and it's important to me to remind people that the US destroyed Iraq in response to 9/11 (and Iraq wasn't behind it, regardless of them being an evil government) and a million people died and also we bear eternal shame for kidnapping people and torturing them in black prisons during that terrible time. I was a young adult at that time and I failed to make any impact on US choices. I hope other people do better than I did.
Israelis can potentially vote out Netanyahu in the next election. But how exactly would you propose to remove Hamas from power without a lot of civilian deaths? Hamas leadership prefers the current state of affairs because it has made them wealthy by taxing the populace and embezzling foreign aid. They have no incentive to agree to a peace deal or allow new multiparty elections. There doesn't appear to be any realistic solution short of a massive, forceful intervention by a neutral foreign coalition.
It's a big problem, indeed. Prior to October 7, a large majority of Gazans supported having the PA take over control in Gaza. It's worth considering to what extent waning support and credibility with their own population was a motivation for Gaza in the attacks, given being seen to do something and goading Israel into making themselves be seen by the Gazan population as an obvious villain plays straight into Hamas' hands.
The biggest blow Israel could deal to Hamas would probably be to do the minimum to contain them, provide the PA with access and means, and let the PA deal with it with guarantees of meaningful concessions if/when the PA succeeds in meeting certain targets (that ought to carefully not mention Hamas, but mention things like demonstrating a functioning justice system and ability to secure the borders). To your point of a "neutral" foreign coalition, if granted access by Israel, the PA would potentially be in a position where it could ask for international assistance and try to frame it as allies coming to the aid of the population rather than an attack on Palestine.
But that would also first take an Israeli government that is serious about peace and negotiating concessions, and frankly the current Israeli government seems as caught up in seeing the continuation of the conflict as essential to their own power as Hamas.
In the meantime there's a real danger this will stoke up more radicalism not just in Gaza but in the West Bank as well.
>There doesn't appear to be any realistic solution short of a massive, forceful intervention by a neutral foreign coalition.
Has such a thing ever happened in history? I don't think it has, so it seems like fantasy. No one really seems interested in risking their or their children's lives policing some other group of people elsewhere in the world if they don't have some geopolitical interest in it.
> But how exactly would you propose to remove Hamas from power without a lot of civilian deaths?
Did you consider that massive civilian death could play into Hamas' hand? One of the insurgency techniques, where the action causes overreaction to amplify support ("action-reaction-revolution").
What happens in Palestine (a territory of the state of Israel plus the territories under the occupation) is called insurgency. To end the insurgency you can either withdraw, exterminate the insurgent population and/or convince the population to not support the insurgent.
Insurgency is always a fight for the legitimacy. The problem with this conflict is the fight for legitimacy happens not only between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, but also within these parties. Israel has official stance on supporting two state solution and un-official de-facto single state goal. Palestinians have Hamas, PLO, Islamic Jihad etc.
Is there any way Israel could undermine Hamas with prosperity? Make the lives of palestinians better, give back settlements, etc? Get average palestinians to think "wtf who are these terrorist asshats, Israel is a good neighbor."
Before the Sharon/Netanyahu/extremist takeover, Israel was serious about peace. But in the last two decades, Netanyahu has seen Hamas as an asset to undermine the PA, block moderates, and eliminate the 2 state option [1,2].
Israel has killed Hamas leaders who wanted to work towards peace [3]:
>> After Israel assassinated Jabari, Reuven Pedatzur, a military analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported:
>> Our decision makers, including the defense minister and perhaps also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knew about Jabari’s role in advancing a permanent cease-fire agreement. … Thus the decision to kill Jabari shows that our decision makers decided a cease-fire would be undesirable for Israel at this time, and that attacking Hamas would be preferable.
An Israeli government that was actually interested in peace could halt and reverse the settlements in the West Bank, end the apartheid (e.g. military vs civilian courts for Palestinians, different class of citizenships, travel restrictions, prevention from visting Jerusalem's holy sites, etc.), the blockade of Gaza, etc. Treating Palestinians as humans (and not propping up Hamas) would likely go a long way towards undermining Hamas. Most Palestinians already didn't like Hamas - 70% wanted the PA in July 2023 according to the Washington Institute.
Israel should stop expanding settlements. Those only make a final peace deal harder to achieve. But that won't solve the Hamas problem. Hamas leaders don't care what average Gazans think nor will they voluntarily give up power. Prosperous Gazans already have to pay Hamas protection money, so more prosperity in Gaza means more resources flowing to Hamas to buy weapons.
The problem is that there is no "Israel should or shouldn't do" - countries don't have agency like that, their governments do. And those currently in power intentionally wanted to make a peace deal harder to achieve, because they don't want peace.
I can empathize with this, and hope your family remains safe. But I'm afraid Netanyahu and Hamas are just tips of icebergs, and criticism at that level will not be even remotely sufficient to resolve the underlying issues. I'd love to be corrected, but it seems to me that _all_ religions (not only Judaism or Islam) are plagued by supremacist beliefs about their own ethnic group. At the ethnic group level, religion seems to be an evolutionary advantage if not a primary driving force of genetic success. But at the global, human level, it is often catastrophic. Religious apologists tend to paper over their (often subconscious?) supremacist fundamentals with moral teachings and utopian visions, but I think it's crucial that these beliefs are publicly examined and criticized on the global stage, "heresy" be damned. Would be curious to hear your thoughts.
Judaism is very different to other religions in some ways. It is not a proselytizing religion - it's not looking to convert anyone to Judaism.
It has certain supremacist beliefs - the Jews are the "chosen people" of God, giving them certain duties and certain privileges. But it's not necessarily a "Jews are better" line of thinking. Though of course many religious Jews may phrase it in those terms.
Worth mentioning that the majority of Israelis are secular, so the religious view on this, whatever it is, is a minority view in Israel.
> Netanyahu is not a conventional ideologue. His opposition to a two-state solution does not derive from any messianic conviction or biblical inspiration. While many of his supporters are religious traditionalists, he is staunchly secular and doesn’t even keep kosher. Instead, his worldview is shaped by deep pessimism. “I’m asked if we will for ever live by the sword – yes,” he told a group of Knesset members in 2015. He had absorbed this view as a child. His father, Benzion Netanyahu, was a dyspeptic historian of the Spanish Inquisition who died in 2012, at the age of 102. “Jewish history is in large measure a history of holocausts,” Netanyahu Sr once told the New Yorker’s David Remnick. For Netanyahu the son, that catastrophic vision of history has meant that nearly all matters of defence appear refracted through the lens of existential threat. According to such calculus, any Palestinian state would almost certainly devolve into an Islamist terror state threatening Israel’s existence; therefore indefinite Israeli control over the occupied territories is an absolute necessity for Jewish survival.
You massively discount the radicalizing effect. After what happens, neither side will agree to peace under your formula (which never worked even in more optimistic times).
It wouldn't just require a change of leaders.
It would require an end to apartheid against Palestinians.
It would require the colonist settlement of Israel giving back all it's land to the Palestinians.
It would require all those involved being brought in front of the ICC for war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Since 2005 I've only lived in Israel for about 1 year. I currently live in Berlin.
For my family, the downsides of immigration are too great vs the downsides of upper-middle class living in metropolitan Tel Aviv. Israel is the only place where their mother tongue is the dominant local language, where their culture is the dominant local culture, where they have their friends and family and professional networks. Where they're not foreign.
Immigration is a pain in the ass and I'm not surprised most people don't do it.
Just wondering... if in your describing community and culture are the valuable features of Israeli daily life, why aren't more people interested in a single state solution? Tel Aviv seems like a thriving, resilient hub. Would it be so buffetted by (admittedly major) changes to borders and civil rights across Judea?
In your opinion what are the chances of having an early election to replace Netanyahu? AFAICT it requires a non-confidence vote in the Knesset, but how likely do you think this could happen?
I'll be a bit more pessimistic than others here. Netanyahu knows that elections won't go favorably for him, but he's very smart and has survived this long - and he's still in charge; he'll be putting a lot of effort towards fending off early elections, certainly until he can show some win for Israel here (not that I think it's possible at this point).
We're also in a situation where he knows that dragging out the war might be the best strategy for him personally, which worries me greatly.
Not the OP but Netanyahu is living on borrowed time — he won't be replaced in the middle of the war, but even Likud is having private talks about who replaces him once it's over. I would give very high probability that he is replaced well before his term is up.
Unfortunately, given Bibi's single-minded focus on staying in power, "he won't be replaced in the middle of the war" guarantees that he will try to make this a forever war.
I'm curious if pressure from the US ever mounts enough to end this war. Currently we're supporting Israel just like we always have and are just making some empty statements to signal to the more left-leaning segment of the Democrat voter base. I think it's most likely this reality continues, but it does seem possible, albeit unlikely, that Democrat voter discontent gets high enough that we force an end to the war in the next two months.
Of course, even if that somewhat far-fetched scenario comes true we'll probably be up to at least 40,000 Gazans killed :/
IMO he doesn't have the votes in the Knesset to do it, and the US is already applying significant pressure to wrap it up soon. Not to mention the Israeli economy can't take the workforce drain to sustain the war at this level for much longer. He doesn't have forever, whether he likes it or not.
I think it's close to 100% that we will have an early election, as he can't placate his right-extremist coalition partners on which his government depends. I would guess we'd be up to a 2024 elections.
That the Israelian public is devided on the current Israelian government and its policies was reported on in Germany when it was about the judicative reforms.
Reporting this devide between religious hardliners and more liberal people stopped with the Hamas and Gaza attacks. Since then, it basically comes down to equating Israel as a nation (ignoring the fact that policy is made governments) with all Israelians (ignoring opposition to the current Israelian government) with all jews everywhere else. Ehy am I saying this? Because every critique of Israel as nation, and the policies of the current government, have been almost immediately been called out as being anti-semitic.
I think that does a disservice to everyone: jews, because it makes ever jew kind of a target for people oposing Israel (after all Israel is representative for each and every jew, if you believe certain articles). It makes it harder for Israelian opposition forces to get traction and it squarely devides Arabs / Muslims from jews, making dialogue extremely hard.
One can critizie Israel as a nation without being an anti-semite. One can also be supportive of Gazan civilians without supporting Hamas. By preventing this discourse, nobody is gaining anything.
I very much agree that calling any criticism of Israel anti-semitic is both factually wrong and very bad, on many levels.
The main thing that upsets Israelis is when the criticism is:
1. Specific only to Israel, and/or far harsher on Israel than on other similar countries for no reason.
2. The criticism offers no path by which Israel is allowed to defend itself. It's totally legit (and morally must be done) to criticize Israel if it does bad things - but if literally every action that Israel takes is criticized as being "too much", the end result can only be "Israel cannot do anything".
Btw, small language nitpick - the correct term is "Israeli" not "Israelian", at least in English.
It is tricky isn't it? Because both sides in this conflict have the right to exist and defend themselves. Terror attacks are not self defence, nor are illegal settlements or what amounts to terror bombing.
Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. And that won't hapoen for all kinds of reasons. Displacing all Gazans isn't a solution neither so, and if tried it would isolate Israel internationally. And by extension of that risking of deviding the world at large into supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians, in which case this whole thing could blow up in everyones faces.
For the record, I am completely against the illegal settlements. Though if you're referring to the current war when you say "terror bombing", I disagree with that description of it.
> Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in.
Honestly, what needs to happen is completely obvious to everyone. The only way peace will happen is if there is a two state solution in which Palestinians get some land (presumably the WB, Gaza, and/or land swaps for existing settlements that are hard to move). And Israel gets some security assurances.
The only problem is that there have been no leaders on either side willing to reach such a deal, or at least, we haven't had leaders on both sides willing to reach a deal at the same time.
Absolutely agree on the two state solution, withe qual security assurances and existence rights for both. Otherwise it will end with a last man standing thing, and hopefully only a very small minority is actually fine with that.
Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing, we can call startegic bombing if you want. Point is, this didn't work once since it was first tried, small scale, in WW1 and at an unprecedented scale in WW2. It didn't work in Vietnam neither. Or Iraq, the Balcans... The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources.
For the very same reason I am utterly opposed to drone warfare as done by the West in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.
> Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing
It isn't done to wreck civil infrastructure, it's done to attack Hamas that is cynically using that civil infrastructure for itself.
> The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources.
Well the intent is a big difference too. Trying to kill civilians on purpose vs. air striking valid military targets.
Though yes of course, if Hamas had the means of bombing Israel with something stronger than what it's using now, no doubt it would do so. Imagine that they ever get those means - a rocket that Iron Dome can't stop for example - the direct result of that would be Israel being forced to attack Gaza with far more force.
Also, Hamas not using suicide bomers? Are you kidding? They've been using them for dozens of years in order to disrupt peace processes, among other things. Even after October 7th, there have been additional terror attacks that Hamas has claimed credit for (though I think it was stabbings, not a suicide bomber specifically, not sure.)
Re Suicide Bombers: By so far I meant in current conflict.
Re bombing and airstrikes: For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless. And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes?
The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
> The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
This rings so hollow to me. People were out protesting Israel the day of the October 7th attacks, which was before Israel had done anything! In the eyes of many people in the world, Israel is guilty, period, no matter what it does.
Not to mention, and this is also a pretty important point - Israel showing initial restraint would've made it look weak, which could easily have meant that this war would've turned into a multi-state regional conflict. Hezbollah for weeks was watching from the sidelines, deciding whether to join the conflict or not. Had they done so, casualties on all sides would be far far higher.
People seem to forget that the way to stop wars is to make the so costly as to not be worth it, which you don't do by showing restraint.
> For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless.
That's a very sad consequence of the fact that Hamas uses that civilian infrastructure, thus making it effectively not civilian any more.
> And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes?
C'mon. Israel could easily attack and kill far more people. Just look at actual mass slaughters that have happened.
Israel isn't coming anywhere close to what it could do if it wanted. Unlike Hamas, it isn't constrained by capability.
Also, it is now doing a ground offensive which is causing far more Israeli soldier casualties, instead of continued bombing.
There were demonstrations against Israel, for sure. The public perception so is shifting. Abu Ghraib like pictures, sieges of hospitals, large scale distruction of housing and so on and so forth.
The IDF is the heavy weight in this conflict, the Goliath and not the David. And when the Goliath, the heavy weight, continues punching the weaker foe, there is a point where he looks more like the baddy. Regardless of what the other party did initially. Not sure Israel can afford loosing support from its allies.
What does drive me crazy so, is the argument of "but they used civilian buildings, so they were legitimate targets". That's not how this works, and that it doesn't work that way is one of the reasons why asymetrical warfare is so damn hard. That argument didn't fly in WW2, and it doesn't fly now.
As the stronger party, an overreaction doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look butt hurt. The US did after 9/11 as well, and it got them nowhere. Restraint, with the hint of being able to use much more severe measures, makes you look strong as oppossed to be a bully. Goes dor every conflict at every level throughout history, not just the current one in Gaza.
The first step would be to stop indiscriminately killing civilians (or discriminately killing civilians, whatever, just stop).
The next step is up to them to figure out, but "commit war crimes" isn't an acceptable answer. Those pointing out the war crimes don't have to pitch an alternative to war crimes and hope the idea is accepted or whatever. Just stop killing civilians, then reassess.
Just to clarify exactly where I sit morally: I do not find it acceptable to kill 10 civilians in retaliation for 1 civilian being killed, nor do I find it acceptable that such 10x revenge killing of civilians is allegedly done in the name of saving civilians. Such statements tell me that the ones making them, don't view Palestinians as civilians to be saved. Whereas I don't believe 1 Palestinian civilian life is any more or less important than 1 Israeli civilian life.
That question is as "simple" as asking what Palestinian civilians should do when attacked.
These are actually simple questions (yes or no format):
> We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right?
> Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/?
If your goal isn't that, you should speak up, because that is currently the goal of most of everyone else. Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved.
I'm going to write that again for emphasis, since you've tried to change the topic to it twice now:
--> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. <---
As it is, you seem a bit distracted from the goal of minimizing the ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak. Focus. We can discuss your question after, and only after, the civilian deaths stop racking up.
Maybe that is true, maybe not. Maybe the inverse is true, maybe not. Either way, you're asking about a security consideration, so I guess I must repeat this a third time:
===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <===
For now, please take the time to read the post you just responded to, as it directly addresses that subject, and you seem to have ignored it, based on your lack of answers for the 2 questions contained within, and your 2-sentence reflexive reply to a multi-paragraph post.
How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
I think if Netanyahu loses the next elections and is replaced with more moderate voices (like Ganz or former PM Lapid), and if the US/NATO/UN peace keeping forces will agree to PLO's leadership wishes to back them into taking control of the Gaza strip with Hamas as a junior partner in its government we may get there. But a lot of these things may not happen.
I really hope it plays out like this. What really pisses me off so, Hamas leadership is sitting savely in the Emirates. And the religious right in Israel, the ones promoting the settlement policies for example (their rethoric isn't something I'll repeat or even cite) is excempt from serving in the military to an extent.
We didn't have the UN to organize international agreements and compromises before 1945. I don't think there's any other realistic chance for peace, like the Israelis the Palestinians are too stubborn to simply give up and surrender.
Although I got a good chuckle out of that, don't lose sight of the bigger goal here. Fighting needs to stop or, failing that, be contained. We want to create low-stress, high-comfort, high opportunity situations.
If doing that involves building coalitions with people who don't care about men dying then so be it. If they do care then so be it. The important thing is where the opinion goes regarding war. What motivates it deserves discussion, but as long as the direction is good that is the most important thing settled.
>When you're on the side of women and children, who lose in every conflict, everyone else gets confused because they expect you to pick one of the men's teams.
So men don't lose in every conflict? Countries are "men's teams"?
I'm sorry but this is infantilizing as well as brutally sexist.
Women certainly gained a lot economically from WWII while the men were getting minced at Normandy. Ukrainian women and children were allowed to flee while the men are eviscerated by Wagner and Friends.
Current estimates suggest 2/3 of civilian deaths in Gaza consist of women and children. That leaves 1/3 of deaths being men. But this is disregarded altogether because sexist rhetoric is acceptable when you're a radical feminist UwU.
I can't find exact numbers easily, but a Turkish source said in 2023-November:
> The Palestinian Health Ministry said on Tuesday that the death toll from Israeli’s ongoing intensified onslaught on the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7 has jumped to 10,328 people. Among the killed are 4,237 children and 2,719 women, Gaza-based Health Ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said at a press conference. (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/palestinian-death-toll-...)
10328 dead. 2719 were women. 4237 were children. Someone's missing-- oh, must be 3372 men.
It turns out men and children also comprise 2/3 of deaths right now. In raw numbers women are actually the least-affected of all demographics in the current conflict, but the narrative is touted that women have it worse. (The NYT corollary: black women always have it worse.)
To claim that women are the biggest losers in every conflict is histrionic bullshit. Men just don't count because we're stupid enough to defend them, while everybody loses in war-- children, most of all.
95% plus of the time the war is decided and progressed by men. Very few women in the Israeli government, and none making decisions in Hamas. Same in Venezuela and Guyana, Russia and Ukraine, Sudan etc etc
That's still how our patriarchal societies unfortunately work.. that's similarly true for a lot of western governments still.
Nevertheless, even if the little elite that decides the fate of the peace wanting majority is 100% men, what does that now mean for suffering little men vs women?
The Israeli army btw has a surprisingly high percentage of women.. do now more men or women suffer? Please just let's stop with the nonsense, humans suffer.
Regardless of who wins, does that country now have to cherish and celebrate the men for what they did?
Do we look at human progress overall as "something done by men"? Because the vast majority was done by men. Do we look at cities as things "made by men"?
You can't have it both ways. Women either take credit and responsibility for contributions to society or they don't. Very few women in governments which decided to give voting rights to women, very few making decisions. Is giving women the right to vote an achievement from men? It's ridiculous.
Lots of women with power in Venezuela. Check yourself before you check others. Socialist regimes love to show women in power to prove how progressive they are.
This is silly, and it reduces women to beings without agency. It is a cultural thing, and sex has nothing to do with it. One could even argue that it is women who raise those boys like that (which is of course not correct).
It is the dominator culture, which feminism until the third wave was trying to abolish. Fourth wave feminism is a product of it.
I think the feminist in question wants attribution for herself rather than to make a point.
Both sides have been harmed. The war is about reducing continuing harm from an organisation that literally said that this was just the start of things...
By harming civilians? Like GGP, I am disgusted by everyone carrying a weapon in this conflict. These people were driven out of their homes and walled off in poverty a few decades ago by an unelected government, which legitimized itself with elections only after they were gone. Some of the displaced are violent. That doesn't justify inflicting further pain on the rest.
I've been reading this site for 5+ years at this point and I hope that this experiment/exercise does not continue. This is an issue where those demanding commentary are generally not doing so in good faith, and acknowledging the reality of the situation is something that is best not done in polite company. There are plenty of places where you can discuss this content as much as you'd like, and nobody's life will be improved by this becoming yet another one of them.
You usually nuke stories that are political. I'm not being critical, it clearly leads to significant improvement over similar sites.
What makes this one different? When I see a headline like this, I usually assume I managed to see it before you did, and if I refresh the page that it will probably disappear. So again, and without accusation, what's different?
Bad things happen all over the world, nearly constantly or at least it seems to a cynic like myself. Some of those bad things seem... if not fixable, then at least not intractable. Those stories don't seem welcome here though. Surely the situation in Israel and Palestine is as intractable as any, and so much more than most.
Users usually flag them, but yes, moderators often downweight them too—and then there are times that we turn off the flags.
The answer to your question goes like this: (1) some stories with political overlap are on topic (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... (2) we try to be careful about which those are, so the site doesn't go down in flames; (3) I think it follows from HN's core principle (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) that we have to allow at least some discussion of this topic—to suppress it altogether would contradict the intended spirit of HN; and (4) I've explained (or tried to) the sense in which this particular story can be on topic for HN, in my other comments in this thread.
If you or anyone reads that material and still have a question that isn't answered there, I can take a crack at it. Just please understand that the answer may or may not be satisfying, because even if we agree on the principles, different people interpret and draw the lines differently. The important thing for HN moderation is the principles, though, not the individual calls.
I skim through headers of 100+ vote submission daily, and since 7.10 I haven't seen anything about this conflict until recently, and now this is second in last week. Since the discussion usually tend to be broad topic rather than specific link, this feels a lot (I left a single comment last time and was flooded by responses). Both entries are talking negatively about Israel (I think specifically Al Jazeera is not very good source being affiliated with Qatari government) so it feels kind of biased; of course it may just reflect HN users opinion, but the comments were more balanced?
Yes - the reason is that it slowly started to dawn on me that we can't avoid this topic altogether and still remain within the intended spirit of this site. That took a while, and it's probably better to have waited in any case, because otherwise the odds of reflective rather than reflexive responses (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) would have been even lower than they currently are.
Basically everything in how we run HN is an attempt to optimize for the core principle: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... I know it's not at all obvious how this topic can be within that spirit, but it's also not obvious how avoiding the topic can be within that spirit, so it feels to me like we have to try. I'm trying to support that in this thread a lot more actively than I usually do. (Btw, this has the side effect of paying much less attention to what else is on HN's front page, or happening in comments elsewhere. Usually I make the opposite tradeoff.)
> I know it's not at all obvious how this topic can be within that spirit
It seems to me such important happenings demand curiosity from rational adults, and I'm struggling to understand why an otherwise-rational community would suddenly disagree... Anyway I appreciate your efforts in this thread and everywhere else on the site.
Also, it's amusing to me that, more often than not, discussions about this topic are derailed by discussion about whether it's possible to discuss the original topic in good faith, rather than any sort of blatant ignorance about the actual topic. It's very meta.
People who are "intellectually curious" about the Israel-Palestine conflict and its history should go read a book (or several)[0] instead of debating it on social media. At least that's my opinion.
> Maybe the only thing worse than trying is not trying.
I and others in this thread have been trying to say that from experience, any discussion (unless maybe it's between trusted friends in a face-to-face interaction) about this topic turns into an absolute shitshow sooner or later. I'll admit that this isn't the worst I've seen on the internet, but scroll down far enough, and you'll find enough people engaging in basically flamewars.
"Hearing each other" is all well and good when we're talking about technology, where lots of people on HN are either very knowledgeable about a subject or can at least share their personal experiences. For a topic such as this, I don't think that the HN audience can give any particular insight. Nor do I think that this can be gleaned by individual news articles. The history of this conflict is incredibly complex and anyone who wades into inevitably discovers how little they know about it. That book I mentioned has more than 800 pages and it stops somewhere in the early 2000s, I believe (indeed, the first edition came out on a hopeful note in light of the Oslo accords).
I hear you, and it's all true, but I can only repeat what I said in the GP: despite all this, I think we have no choice but to try. To give up on that would be to give into the dehumanizing and dehumanized in ourselves. I can't go with that in good conscience and I don't think it's in HN's long term interest, even though it would be universes of easier to just act like it's not happening.
I did my best to moderate this thread, to the point of overload, and yes there was a lot of flamewar and guidelines-breakage that I simply couldn't get to.
IMO what we need to do is find at least a drop of (let's call it) heart in ourselves not only for the ones we identify with, but also for the ones we don't identify with. That's how we can start being human about this. If even a tiny amount of that is possible, and of course it is, then we owe it to ourselves to try.
I'm afraid I can't really follow your logic here. You seem to imply that a) one becomes "dehumanized" if one doesn't deeply care about the Israel-Palestine conflict and b) that caring about it implies one should discuss it with strangers on the internet.
I think neither of these is true. a) is IMHO false unless you care to a similar extent about all the other atrocities happening even as we speak - most of which elicit a response of "oh that's sad but what will you do". The reason why people care about this conflict (myself included) is because it has become a proxy conflict that is really about other things.
b) is IMHO false because the real action one should take if one cares about this is first and foremost contact anyone you know who is affected by this conflict - even if indirectly, say, by antisemitism or islamophobia - ask them how they're doing and express your support (not necessarily for their positions but for their plight).
I really don't understand what good it does anybody to engage in debate about a topic that is so politically charged and where almost everyone has only half-knowledge (or less).
I understand where you are coming from. In my experience, the reflective response is often a steel manning of one's own position. This often involves framing, as in using phrases that are agreeable in another context into the author's position. The error I see is both sides of the argument constraining the scope of their discourse to only use information that supports their position. Lies by omission & more often than not, lying to oneself first.
In my experience, having tools to expand the contextual scope is vital, if not the definition, to supporting intellectual curiosity. That's where we seem to disagree on flagging & even downvoting. I think being able to somehow deconstruct comments to extract the insightful (& indicative) as signal over the noise in the comment would also be useful. It's open ended on how that would be done but it's worth exploring IMO.
I think tools that improve expression, understanding, & evaluation of context are critical to improving cohesion across humanity. I am busy writing open source libraries with the intent of creating apps to support contextual expression & understanding. I hope others create & collaborate in building these sorts of tools (tech, social, spiritual, etc) because it may be one of the most important advances for healing our many divides.
---
> That's where we seem to disagree on flagging & even downvoting.
I think the author's intent of expression is often not heard with the same context. So the meaning of what was spoken & what was heard is different. Often one applies their judgements to what was heard while not grasping the context of what was spoken.
Have you done any analysis on who downvotes/flags, on what they downvote/flag, & how often?
>> the reason is that it slowly started to dawn on me that we can't avoid this topic altogether and still remain within the intended spirit of this site.
Pleasantly surprised to see you state/admit this - thanks dang <3
I got the impression that stories about the Ukraine/Russia was have been consistently suppressed, including stories about the tech side of the war - drones, hacking, etc. Is this impression mistaken?
It was similar. Users flagged many posts, and we applied the same principles as I've described in this thread, as best we could. That involved turning off flags on certain stories. Unfortunately, the threads did not go well.
That experience is one reason why I'm taking a different approach in the current thread. We're trying to learn over time how to support some discussion (but not too much) of these difficult topics, while remaining within the intended spirit of the site.
Could these threads be saved by a different post weighting model? Throw away downvoted posts, but also discard controversial up voted posts? Or detect bipartisan voting and discard those votes?
- This submission is being kept up out of personal agenda (in which case, fair, we can vote with out feet and voices on other platforms)
- This submission is being kept up out of genuine belief. That would constitute an adjective used to describe a person who inadvertently helps their enemies (which Iranian proxies are).
On another note, the article contents - most of it is just poor conditions and rough treatment, which is something that happens to you if you rape and massacre civilians. If you want to know what is actual torture, look up what happens in russia-occupied regions of Ukraine. That's torture, and it happens on a scale far surpassing anything that happened or can happen on such a small piece of land as Gaza strip.
This is a highly politically charged conflict that’s mainly relevant for being a sort of rhetorical proxy conflict (see all the other conflicts going on that receive a fraction of the attention). The point of discussing this topic is to rhetorically battle.
Unlike say, the current civil war in Burma or Sudan, or the Azeri-Armenian war, basically everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say.
That is not the only point of discussing this topic, and definitely not the point of discussing it here. This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time.
I agree with you about this:
> everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say
... but as I've explained elsewhere in this thread, I don't think suppressing the topic outright is a solution either (I mean a solution to the particular constraints of this site, not in general).
So what do we do? We each work in ourselves to find a larger space than just our own opinion. We make room for the other alongside ourselves. If we can do that, we'll be able to comment from a place of openness rather than battle. For those who feel too intensely to do so: that is human—let's just be aware enough to recognize that state in ourselves and refrain from posting as long as we're in that state.
It is clearly a charged topic and while you did a good job setting the tone, it clear that moderating this discussion will be a daunting task for anyone.
I am already seeing the antisemitic comments calling Jews colonizers, stealing land from indigenous people for 75 years. The one-liners or single-sentence zingers lack context or, often, truth.
I do appreciate comments from people living in that area -- what their lives were and are before and during this conflict.
I do wish that instead of this charged subject on HN, instead an article discussing the history of this land and people living on it. History of empires, conquests, displacements, wars, attacks.
Etymology of the names and Meaning of terms that are being used by both sides.
* What did Zionism mean in 19th and 20th centuries? What does it mean in 21st century?
* What does Anti-Zionism mean?
* Where does the word Palestine come from?
* What really happened in 1948?
* What happened to Gaza Strip under Egyptian rule from 1948 to 1967?
* What happened to West Bank under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967?
Discussing history of what happened and what did not would be less explosive and more productive use of great minds on HN, in my opinion.
This post is barely coherent with a wall of YouTube links pointing to videos across multiple subjects including the settlement policies(which I don’t agree with), claims of poor treatment by released Palestinian prisoners who were in prison for amongst other things stabbing random Jews, as well as other subjects that are all over the place.
Let’s try to have a discussion while focusing on one subject at a time.
One subject that stands out is you calling Jews colonizers.
It’s indisputable that the Jewish history in the area of modern day Israel goes back thousands of years.
These areas were in fact colonized by Romans, then Ottomans, then by the British.
Many Jews were expelled during these colonizations.
The act of migration of Jews back to what is present day Israel in 1948 was NOT colonization but a return of indigenous people to their homeland.
Words have meanings.
Colonization means something. Jews return to Israel was not it.
Apartheid means something.
Israeli Arabs enjoy the same rights as non-Arab Israelis, they serve in the government, Supreme Court and even the IDF if they choose to.
Israel is not an apartheid state because it does not segregate its citizens by race/ethnicity.
> yes becuse nothing is more important the opions of 19tha nd 20th century white populated countries when it comes to the affairs of people in their coloies
In spite of sounding fairly racist, you are historically correct - opinions of white populated countries - Britain and France - as well as the League of Nations - were in fact important because in 1920s they helped sketch the borders of future Arab nation-states we such as Kingdom of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, etc and ultimately led to emergence of Arab nationalism that shaped these Middle East countries.
If you invalidate UN partition of British Mandate Palestine by saying “oh British people promised to us”, then you will have to invalidate most of Arab Nation states in the Arabian Peninsula. You also invalidate the sovereignty of both India and Pakistan.
> I think it’s best if all the european jews in israel went back to their respective countries.
What about the Mizrahi Israelis of middle eastern & North African origin? They constitute close to 70% of Israeli Jews.
What about non-Mizrahi Jews who were born in Israel and who have no cultural or ethnic connections to European countries you speak of.
> This post is barely coherent with a wall of YouTube links pointing to videos across multiple subjects
whats barely coherent about this? Ive provided context as well as links to reputable sources (journalists on the ground documenting whats goig on) backing them up yet you casually dismiss them like I'm posting videos to flat earther vids. its doesn't take much for an unbiased observer to realize that what zionists are doing is not right. Please examine your own biases and at least watch them.
>The act of migration of Jews back to what is present day Israel in 1948 was NOT colonization but a return of indigenous people to their homeland.
and what of the people living there? was it really necessary to force them to relocate "trail of tears" style? we are taught in history books that it wa sa tradjedy on native american peoples. how is this any different?
>These areas were in fact colonized by Romans, then Ottomans, then by the British. Many Jews were expelled during these colonizations.
and they are welcome back there if their intention is to peacefully coexist. the issue is that there is an occupation. the rights of the palestinians are suppressed in order to maintain a far right ethnostate.
> Israeli Arabs enjoy the same rights as non-Arab Israelis,
and palestinians in the west bank are subject to something very akin to apartheid. Please tell me why it was necessary to have hundres of children as young as 10 years old doing prison time in israeli miliary courts? how does that not immediately light up a red flag in the back of your mind that something isn't right?
> If you invalidate UN partition of British Mandate Palestine by saying “oh British people promised to us”, then you will have to invalidate most of Arab Nation states in the Arabian Peninsula. You also invalidate the sovereignty of both India and Pakistan.
india and pakistan agreed to that rift. the division between muslims and hindus was largely manufactured by the british as part of their means of keeping colonies under their control. I have plenty of criticisms about modhi and his far right hindu nationalist mindset bit thats goign off topic.
> What about the Mizrahi Israelis of middle eastern & North African origin? They constitute close to 70% of Israeli Jews.
Im not opposed to european jews living in the region. I'm opposed to the occupation and subjugation of the palestinian people. let them return to live in israel and grant ALL of them citizenship and right to due process that is afforded to israeli citizens. make the israeli government a place where both paletinians AND israelis can pursue justice and you might find peace is within reach.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. they are perfectly fine killing civilians to achieve their goal. if we establish that the willingness to harm civilians in pursuit of miltary advantage is the mark of a terrorist, please tell me how the IDF is any different here? I've already sent you several youtube links from journalistic sources highlighting the human rights atrocities of the IDF as well as the human rights violations of israeli settlers in the west bank against palestinians. most recent of which being a mass killing in a school involving literal children. People turn to terrorism when there are no avenues to justice.
This is exactly what netinyahu wants. force palestinians to need hamas so that he can use (fear of ) hamas to perpeuate his far right regime. peace could be achieved fairly easily if it was an option the far right of israel wanted. but that would mean accepting paletsinans with open arms and making them first class citizens alongside jews in israel. But that gets in the way of his aspirations for an ethnostate.
there's definitely a subgroup of people on here trying actively to suppress discussion of a US taxfund payer subsidized genocide going on right now. if me bringing that to light bothers you, well, I'm not sorry.
The problem is that while al jazeera can be balanced about certain topics, fact is it is entirely government funded by an authoritarian undemocratic state and on this topic in particular it seeks to purposefully take a prejudiced anti Israeli stance. It has also been criticised for biased to the Syrian dictator, and takes various stances according to the foreign ministry. We therefore cannot be certain if the claims are true.
Unfortunately as history has repeatedly proven, propaganda works. At the very least maybe source should include Government funded?
You can make a similar case against any media organization. They all publish true things and false things. They all have biases that highlight certain things that are happening while occluding others.
> This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time.
Does HN have a policy against epistemic soundness in claims? Because if there is a method that is maximally useful for these sorts of issues, it is disciplined epistemology. Yet, I know of no explicit policy on it, but I have been subjected to scolding for practicing it, suggesting there is an implicit policy, at least to some degree (perhaps only on some topics, who knows). Or, an error has been made....which once again is an epistemological matter.
If people refuse to even try to utilize the tools that exist, and discussion of that phenomenon is disallowed, it may not be optimal game play....and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing?
(And yes, I do realize that the culture we've been raised in has taught us that statements like mine "are" necessarily "in bad faith", though mine is not actually.)
You know that word "is" you use now and then? That word is fundamentally based in epistemology.
> and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing?
Do you understand that part?
I will add some clarity: by "suboptimal gameplay", I am referring to the individual and collective behaviour of human beings, as it relates to causality (the consequences of our behaviour).
I am basically asking what HN's stance is on being curious about "large" quantities of (at least plausibly) unnecessary human death.
Are you asking about how one can possibly be "curious" in the face of a catastrophe like this, and what that even means? I think that's a legit question. If curiosity means a detached-technical attitude, that is not an appropriate response to this topic and could in some forms even be monstrous. But that's not what I mean here. What I do mean, I tried to describe at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662. It has to do with being open to others.
> Are you asking about how one can possibly be "curious" in the face of a catastrophe like this, and what that even means?
I am asking: can you be curious about whether it may have be possible for these (and future) deaths to be avoided, had some humans acted differently than they had?
I suspect this may seem like a very strange question, and I propose that that is an artifact of the problem.
> If curiosity means a detached-technical attitude, that is not an appropriate response to this topic...
Here you are representing a subjective belief as knowledge, on a matter where people's lives are at stake. Can you be curious about whether this approach as a moderator on a website frequented by some of the most powerful minds on the planet may be preventing lives from being saved, or whether it is part of the underlying causality of why these powerful minds can't keep it together when discussing topics like this (which may also contribute to the causality underlying deaths)?
As a random bystander I find your comments extremely hard to comprehend. It's not really the vocabulary, although it could do to be less lofty. I think part of it is sentences like this:
> Can you be curious about whether this approach as a moderator on a website frequented by some of the most powerful minds on the planet may be preventing lives from being saved?
This sounds to me, and maybe I'm wrong, like you have some sort of pre-formed opinion about what Dang et al are doing, but are choosing to cast it in the lens of "can you be curious" as a way of avoiding just directly saying what you think.
> This sounds to me, and maybe I'm wrong, like you have some sort of pre-formed opinion about what Dang et al are doing
I certainly do. And, it is worth noting that while all beliefs are opinions, not all are merely opinion.
Is your read on me better than mine on you? How much experience do you have in the domain?
> but are choosing to cast it in the lens of "can you be curious" as a way of avoiding just directly saying what you think.
My strategy is to use deliberately unusual language in order to break people out of System 1 / LLM / Colloquial mode.
Clearly it is not working, have you any advice for me now that we've at least somewhat, perhaps, broken the 4th wall?
Reminder: thousands have died already, more will (presumably) in the short run, and MANY more in the long run. I appreciate this may not be a pleasant experience, but the stakes are not exactly low.
I appreciate the willingness of HN to allow discussion on this topic.
Despite the inevitable low-quality or even overly-biased comments, I find the comments from both sides of the discussion to be generally informative and thoughtful. Certainly more-so than in any other online context that I'm aware of. I come here to learn and reading opinions that I haven't considered before is essentially how that works (especially when those opinions are well founded and backed up with sources).
In short, I find HN to be a relatively knowledgeable and thoughtful community and I appreciate the opportunity to hear this community's thoughts on what is a very important and complex topic.
I appreciate this thread being allowed on HN. I consider HN to have very high quality discussions and high quality people, and as an Israeli, I believe it is my duty to both:
1. Try to offer smart people an insight into my thinking on this topic, given that I usually have insights they lack.
2. Try to seriously consider other viewpoints to help me better think through my own view of the current war.
I don't really like that an Al Jazeera story is the "prompt" for this, since I think that's a heavily biased source that we may as well ignore, but I'm mostly here for the comments anyway.
I don't quite understand the many people here who think it's such a problem to allow this thread. If you don't want to argue about this topic or be exposed to it - you can always just leave this thread alone! Nothing is forcing you to take part in it.
Can you walk me through how the below commentary is adding value to the HN community? What % of participants will walk away from this conversation with a positive perspective of their peers?
It's hard to find compassion when the truth is hard to find, on either side. And I trust Al Jazeera (and some Israeli newspapers) less on this topic than other sources.
I definitely feel Palestinians have legitimate grievances but on the other hand I fear people's natural compassion being used to prolong a war rather than end it.
Can we get a write up of this "experiment" from your perspective sometime next week?
(Ideally after you finish dealing with all the irate email)
Some of us are probably wondering if we will be seeing more of these "experiments" into 2024. If this is going to be the case, I'll seclude myself in some darker, more obscure corner. Maybe I'll go back to 4chan. Ambiguous moderation is much more onerous to me than no moderation.
Since I don't know how to contact you directly ... My comments got rate limited bacause of two or three dumb comments I made over the span of a decade mostly on religious topics. Does the rate limiting get lifted after some time automatically or is this punishment forever?
I tried asking people here but they didn't come up with an answer except to try to ask you.
If dang gets overwhelmed with comments here (there are a lot) you can always email directly to hn@ycombinator.com ideally from your email used to register here and ask to be returned to normal after acknowledging dumb comments.
I was rate limited for several months until in conversation with dang about an entirely different matter I mentioned that I'd reply in more detail but for the matter of being rate limited.
I guess that triggered a manual look at my comment history and I was upgraded to "mostly harmless".
I don't expect that to always work as not every reply to comments will get read.
> To end this, I usually come to HN to escape from the horrors and constant negativity of traditional news.
I completely share your sentiment, but I don't believe HN ever offered that. I wasn't here for long but I often see posts about current events or uncomfortable subjects (cancer is one of mine for example), although they still represent a small minority.
Hey Dang, I think I've had a rate limit applied to my account from over a year ago. Do these rate limits expire? It's made it difficult to continue in some technical back & forths.
If you’re going to run a forum where blatant rule breaking comments can’t even be reported, maybe refrain from hosting threads on politics, especially one that attracts people who claim that broiling babies alive is some sort of “resistance”.
There is no evidence to that claim. One baby was killed on Oct 7th, which is horrible, but it was not in an oven, not in a pregnant woman, nor beheaded.
"The men and teenage boys were taken to a warehouse where they sat on a bare floor covered in scattered grains of rice. There they were beaten, interrogated and verbally abused. There was no sleep, and the grains of rice cut their skin as they sat there, undressed."
A man claims:
"Some people didn’t return from the torture sessions. We would hear their screams and then nothing.”
From what I read, it seems typical of counterinsurgency war.
A testimony is no proof but humiliation and torture is commonplace is counterinsurgency wars, whether systematic or an initiative of lower ranking soldiers operating on the ground, so it's not an extraordinary statement. And torture can obviously lead to death.
Now I am going to argue something polemic and I am arguing it in the spirit of discussion. I'd love to read well argued counter-arguments :
However supportive of Israel one may be and how repulsed one should be by Hamas, I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. You may think it is justified in doing so but it still is payback imho.
In my country's law, individual self-defense is defined as such :
1. It has to happen in the same time as the agression
2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression
3. The defense has to be proportionate
It seems that so 1. is not met since once all the militants having trespassed having been killed, Israel was no more defending itself. and it's hard to believe that the civilian collateral damage is just defending either. I'd say the third criteria is met in so far as Hamas has rockets and automatic weapons.
I don’t think your take is entirely unreasonable, but I do think you’ve missed a critical detail: Hamas continues to attack Israel. So Israel’s military operation is contemporaneous with a threat, and does at least serve some degree of self-defense purpose.
As I understand it (and wow, the press coverage is incomplete in so many ways), Hamas has a very large number of, approximately, these things:
And they fire them, on an ongoing basis, from civilian sites, at Israel. And Israel could, arguably, feel that it defending itself, contemporaneously, from ongoing attacks, thus satisfying #1 and #2. And, while the defense might not be proportionate per se, it’s not that easy to see how, from a purely tactical perspective, Israel is supposed to defend itself more proportionately. Certainly firing an equal number of rockets back at random civilian sites would make no sense. Although Israel could probably find a way for their soldiers to treat people in a much less dehumanizing way.
(And I think this situation is horrible. And I suspect it’s intentional on Hamas’s part — see my other comment.)
>So Israel’s military operation is contemporaneous with a threat, and does at least serve some degree of self-defense purpose
There really is no self-defense purpose in my mind to what Israel is doing. It's more self-avenging as others mentioned.
You can argue it's a preventative operation to prevent future attack by taking out Hamas, but the approach they're taking does not indicate that since it's completely counter-productive and Israel must know that.
When you level entire neighborhoods, and kill thousands of women and children, and make hundreds of thousands of them homeless, do you really expect those people to start liking Israel now? If killing is the solution to this conflict, it would have been solved a long time ago.
If I lost a loved one at the hands of Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Israel as nothing but an enemy.
> There really is no self-defense purpose in my mind to what Israel is doing. It's more self-avenging as others mentioned.
> You can argue it's a preventative operation to prevent future attack by taking out Hamas, but the approach they're taking does not indicate that since it's completely counter-productive and Israel must know that.
dang has asked us to engage in thoughtful, curious conversation, and absolutes like you’re using seem unhelpful to this end.
What is a “self-defense purpose?” I genuinely believe that Israel has such a purpose, and I think I argued it reasonably well. I didn’t say Israel’s actions were productive or wise, but the self-defense purpose exists.
If Israel’s military command thinks of Gazans as machines or beasts, then it could see itself as doing the right thing. I personally believe that, especially when there is some form of conflict, one needs to remember that people are human, with human feelings and motivations, and consider those feelings and motivations, and Israel might act differently if its military command did so.
And this leads to:
> If I lost a loved one at the hands of Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Israel as nothing but an enemy.
I think this exact feeling is a large part of the problem on both sides. Both sides have killed loved ones on the other side in ways that seem intentional, callous and pointless. (Remember what started the current war, and what Israel is doing as part of this war!) So, if people on both sides share this type of permanent hatred, then they will have a hard time ever finding peace. (And neither Israel nor Gaza are monoliths. Their people, their governments, their deceased ancestors, etc are separate. The actions of some IDF members, the orders from command, the actions of the government, and the actions of the average people are all different. And similarly for Gaza.)
Thanks for challenging my take and for trying to keep the thread focused. Your response was the only one that did not derailed in some way or other.
Back to your response :
Is it the case that Hamas kept on going full on rockets after all the terrorists they sent were killed ?
I am asking because they were already launching rockets before and Israel did not invade Gaza and instead relied on the Iron Dome and somewhat targeted strikes.
I think it matters because it would make the difference between defense and vengeance.
Some people are asking what I think Israel should have done. It's a hard path but I think they should have remained in the role of blatant victim and appeal to the international community to pressure for the release of hostages. Now you can argue that the other side is crazy and justify a hard stance in the eyes of the world. The dead are already dead and engaging in pointless counterinsurgency wars will make you look bad while achieving nothing but maybe endangering the life of hostages. But hey maybe I am deluded who knows.
Wasn't this Hamas's goal all along? They were losing their reason for existing, so they figured out a way reinvigorate hostilities? It looks like they succeeded.
> If I lost a loved one at the hands of Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Israel as nothing but an enemy.
You could rewrite this as: If I lost a loved one at the hands of Hamas/Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Hamas/Israel as nothing but an enemy.
That is: human rights for all (Israelis and Palestinians) and reparations made to those who have been forcibly displaced and killed ever since this conflict began.
agreed, and the idf enforcing equal justice in the west bank instead of allowing settler violence against palestinians to go unpunished and only stepping in when palestinians fight back.
right now, the IDF only perpetuates injustice against palestinians. So the only alternative for them is Hamas. for all the deserved hate Hamas gets, what alternative do palestinian have? the IDF being impartial and enacting justice equally instead of allowing settlers to attack palestinians with impunity would go a long way towards pulling the teerh out of hamas.
It is deeply ironic how Israeli ultranationalists and Hamas are fighting on the same side of the war that would destroy both of them, the fight in people's minds for peace.
How do you expect Israel to defend itself against an enemy that lives next door and is indistinguishable from the citizenry? Doing nothing is not an option: Hamas' explicit, public goal is the annihilation of Israel, and they are right next door. An analogous situation would be if some member(s) of the family next door publicly wanted you dead, and randomly shot at you, your family, and your house. But you don't know which ones, or how many, and you're pretty sure that most of the family is more or less okay with you living there. What do you think the police are going to do? And in this case, there is no police. So what is Israel supposed to do? (The reality is, there is no good solution, in part because Hamas engineered it that way, although I don't see any good solution even if they haddn't.)
How do you expect Palestine to defend itself against an enemy that lives next door and is indistinguishable from the citizenry? Doing nothing is not an option: Israel's explicit, public goal is the annihilation of Palestine, and they are right next door.
The reality is, there is no good solution. Because Israel has engineered it that way, not Palestine, not Hamas.
If the people of the only democracy in the middle east didn't believe this, they'd not have elected Likud to power for 2 decades and counting.
The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.
> Israel's explicit, public goal is the annihilation of Palestine
No it is not. Israel got its own people out of the Gaza strip years ago and hasn't let them back in since. Israel supplies Gaza with water and electricity because Hamas prefers to spend its resources on building tunnel networks and rockets instead of power stations and water treatment works. It is also militarily superior and has nuclear weapons. If they actually decided to "annihilate" Gaza it would be a smoking pile of glass tomorrow, as the military capability is there.
> an enemy that lives next door and is indistinguishable from the citizenry
The IDF wear uniforms and are easily identifiable.
> Doing nothing is not an option
They have lots of options, including making peace with Israel. Step 1 would be to replace the government committed to its destruction, with one that is willing to talk instead of launch rockets. But the Palestinians seem to support the existing strategy.
> They have lots of options, including making peace with Israel. Step 1 would be to replace the government committed to its destruction, with one that is willing to talk instead of launch rockets.
How’s that working out for the Palestinians in the West Bank?
I mean, the actual material living conditions in the West Bank might be better, but don’t the Gazans at least have some form of sovereignty over their land? My understanding is that there is no real independent West Bank Palestinian government that exercises security over the land and the people on it. At least not in favor of the Palestinians.
West Bank also has to suffer constant raids from the IDF in addition to settler violence. Over 100 people had already died in such raids before oct. 7 just this year. They’re land has been partitioned, there are military checkpoints they must go through when the travel inside the West Bank. Many Palestinians are arrested on a regular basis, sometimes without any charges (administrative detention).
Settler violence is also a pretty big deal there, it ranges from vandalism, theft, murder and terrorism. This often goes unpunished and sometimes the IDF even helps settlers steal houses and land from West Bank Palestinians. Note that settlers may even include very conservative Floridians who just moved to “Israel” and feel entitled to a house owned and occupied by a Palestinian family.
West Bank for sure. However this is a false dilemma. You are presenting bow to your occupiers and live under oppression, vs. resist your occupiers and suffer genocidal violence.
As a Palestinian these may be your only choices, neither are good. But one is obviously better in the short term.
However there is another party to this dilemma, the occupier them selves. They also have a choice not to engage in genocidal violence upon resistance or oppress and colonize upon non-resistance. They have a choice to acknowledge and recognize the sovereignty, to decolonize, to integrate and grant equal rights, etc.
The dilemma problem is a damned of you do and damned if you don’t kind. It doesn’t matter what you pick. Your oppressor is the one that needs to pick a different path.
This is a common talking point, but Israel never once offered a real two state solution. All offers had a "poison pill" that they knew would get rejected, but they offered it for this exact talking point, to say they offered peace.
If you look up the actual offers and the negotiations around them, you'll see none of them even abided by international law, so they would have been illegal anyway.
> do you really expect those people to start liking Israel now?
That boat already sailed long ago when the populace is brainwashed into hatred of Israel and Jews from school age. You can find footage of interviews with Gazan children talking about how they hope to murder Jews when they grow up because it will make their family proud.
There is no bloodless solution to this problem. And why should the otherwise peaceful Jews sit and wait for their blood to be spilled by an ever growing population of genocidal anti Semites?
They have offered peace to the Gazans 4 times now? Each time receiving saliva in their face for their efforts. The Gazans don't even want a two state solution, only the extermination of all Jews.
Two states along the 1967 borders. If Israel and the US agreed to this, the international community would overwhelmingly support it. This would be more than enough to guarantee Israel's security.
As one of many examples in the last several decades, the Oslo accords were moving in that direction. Hamas stepped up the violence to such an extent that the death by terrorism rate in Israel increased almost 600% and Itzhak Rabin was assassinated. The public isn’t sure what happened to Yassar Arafat but it didn’t end well for him either. Rabin’s language was changing quickly and given another few years, entity would have likely changed to state.
We’re looking for ideas that end in less violence and where the leaders involved aren’t assassinated.
By who? Your phrasing suggests it was a part of Hamas' terrorism campaign.
Central to the conflict is the Israeli refusal to accept responsibility for the current state of affairs, or to recognize any conception of proportionality. "We f*cked up, and we have not treated Palestinian life as equal to Israeli life," would go a long way towards reconciliation, but Israel will never admit wrongdoing even in the face of actually having committed wrongdoing.
Pretty understandable, since all of Israel is stolen land, while Jews, Christians and Muslims were living in the are peacefully before that in the Islamic era. HN doesn't seem to be aware of that the Nakba happened. Here's a demonstration of the "settlement" process from Guardian: https://youtu.be/ksnLom8OD9E?si=aYvcLqcLQK960fbx
You have a very simplistic view of the history. Many Arabs actually aren’t native to the land either, they moved there for work that the new Jewish immigrants provided. In fact there was significant mutual cooperation and benefit. Land wasn’t stolen either, but bought after the Ottomans empire fell and it became legal for Jews to buy Muslim land (the ottomans had some nasty rules).
Regarding the 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement to leave by the 5 arab countries which declared war on Israel. Many millions of people have fled war, vastly more numerous than this, but yet that is the most infamous.
>> Pretty understandable, since all of Israel is stolen land, while Jews, Christians and Muslims were living in the are peacefully before that in the Islamic era.
When arabs conquered on colonized those lands they were anything but peaceful. For that islamic era to occure, hundreds of thousands had to die.
No that it matters what a terrorist organization has in its charter, but since you think it's relevant, you should at least be honest about it. They are not giving up on their goal to rule the whole whole of Israel/Palestine, they are only willing to temporarily accept the 1968 borders.
When Israel controls the food intake of a population (The Gaza Diet) through a complete blockade, Israel doesn't get to claim they withdrew or respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian people.
Israel tried to do in Gaza what they did in the West Bank. Carve it up, control key resources, create settlements through terrorism and encroach daily on Palestinian territory.
Their settler-colonial crimes are well documented in the West Bank but Israel didn't have enough people and resources at the time to carry crimes both in the West Bank and Gaza.
> Finally, Jewish people cannot colonise an area they’ve been for 3000 years.
I’m not sure what that means.
I’m a person. I have ancestors who were likely [0] forced out of at least four identifiable countries. Many if not most Americans are in a similar position.
Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did not live?
If I moved, permanently, to Antarctica, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, New York, England, Russia, Ukraine, Mars, or Argentina, would I be colonizing, “returning”, etc? Does the answer really depend on where my ancestors lived 50 or 100 or 3000 years ago?
I do think there’s something to be said for someone moving to where their recent ancestors live or lived, but this gets complicated very very quickly, especially when political borders move in the mean time.
I once visited the house in a foreign country where some of ancestors lived in the 1930s, from which they were quite aggressively removed. I’m pretty sure that if I moved back there by force, I would be doing something very very wrong.
[0] I say “likely” because some degree of extrapolation is needed as to what happened tens of generations ago. And the number is likely much larger than 4.
> Jewish people cannot colonize an area they’ve been for 3000 years.
As I understand it, Palestine used to be a majority Jewish area. Their creation myth states that they migrated there from Egypt to escape slavery and oppression. However Jewish people never mass migrated from Palestine like they mass migrated from Egypt. Some Palestinians simply gradually converted religion with during varying colonization, first to Christianity during Roman and Byzantine colonization, then to Islam during Arab and Ottoman colonization and today, most Palestinians are Muslim while Christian minority exists. Prior to 1948 there were even still Jewish Palestinians. Jesus Christ him self was even a Palestinian Jew.
While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries. While in Europe, they still managed to intermarry and doubtless some Europeans even converted to Judaism. These immigrants became part of Europe and European heritage, and after so many generations they became European Jews.
This is why I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise. Zionists are mostly European or European descendants who migrated to lands that wasn’t theirs, made it theirs, and displaced the indigenous population from it.
In my opinion this is the worst possible case of colonialism.
> Some Palestinians simply gradually converted religion with during varying colonization, first to Christianity during Roman and Byzantine colonization, then to Islam during Arab and Ottoman colonization and today, most Palestinians are Muslim while Christian minority exists. Prior to 1948 there were even still Jewish Palestinians. Jesus Christ him self was even a Palestinian Jew.
There was no Palestinian identity prior to 1960. One can easily confirm this for themselves - nobody "met a Palestinian man" prior to this time in any recorded media. People are free to identify however they like, but all people living in this areas were simply Jews, Arabs, or other groups.
Talk about Palestinians prior to this time is part of the same conspiracy theory as the nakba and Jews being from Europe.
> While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries.
Kind of? After the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans pushed the Jews out and renamed Israel (then split into Israel and Judea) into Syria Palestinea, after the Philistines (who were Greek).
> I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise.
You're wrong. You can't colonise your own country. Islam converting some Jews when the arabs colonised the area in the seventh century doesn't change that.
Which also begs the question - why is arab colonisation acceptable but 'European' (but actually not Eupopean, as Jews are from Israel) colonisation not acceptable?
> There was no Palestinian identity prior to 1960. One can easily confirm this for themselves
How so? When I search for the history of the Palestinian identity I can easily find something called Dux Palestinae on Roman maps from 400 CE on both banks of the Jordan river[1], a map of Palestine in 1482 version of Claudius Ptolemy's Cosmographia [1], a British issued passport and coins from the 1920s[1], a letter from Albert Einstein to the editors of The New York Times about happenings in Palestine and Palestine Jewish communities[2], etc.
The problem with looking for a Palestinian identity prior to 1960s is (a) there are historic artifacts, written records, etc. of one existing as early as the 1920s[*], and (b) the notion of the nation state didn’t exist (or was rather rare) prior to world war 1, and not every nation was given a state when nation states proliferated. So just because the nation state of Palestine didn’t exist before the 1920s, that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the Palestinian people before that period, even if they never called them selves such on written records[†]. Talking about national identity in modern terms prior to the proliferation of nation states is kind of nonsensical.
---
* The same applies to the Nakba, however I choice not to engage in a debate about conspiracy theories which deny the history of very real horrors experienced by very real people, of whom many are still alive.
† This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch from The Holy Grail when King Arthur refers to him self as the “King of the Britons” to the peasantry, to which the peasantry promptly reply: “The king of the who?” and “Who are the Britons?”[3]
> > There was no Palestinian identity prior to 1960. One can easily confirm this for themselves - nobody "met a Palestinian man" prior to this time in any recorded media. People are free to identify however they like, but all people living in this areas were simply Jews, Arabs, or other groups.
> How so? When I search for the history of the Palestinian identity I can easily find something called Dux Palestinae on Roman maps from 400 CE on both banks of the Jordan river[1]...
It doesn't seem like you've read the comment you're replying to again. I'm leaving this conversation.
Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to.
Good question. We do know Hamas has very little interest in meeting the needs of Gaza's population - there are no wells, aid money is taken for weapons and for the personal wealth of it's billionaire leaders instead of it's populace. We'll never know if Hamas can feed Gazans because it puts very little effort into doing so.
Land in Israel was purchased from Ottomans and Arabs before 1948, and gained after winning wars declared by Arab states after 1948.
Are you trying to say that not a single Palesitinan has been displaced? The nakba is largely why we have these problems today, and it's still going on.
Again: Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to. Hence the agreement with Israel.
> The nakba is largely why we have these problems today
Not quite, the displacement happened, but that's a symptom of the cause: the wars declared by Arab states after 1948 mentioned in the comment you're replying to.
Likewise Poland and France still own land gained from Germany after WW2.
Do you believe that Israel would allow them to open the border and decide themselves what can go over? Israel have de facto control over this border as they decide what goods and which people can move through it. Saying that Gaza is not under a blockade because they have an Egyptian border is meaningless and disingenuous.
So it's just fine if they stole some land and kicked the people out? They should just be happy with losing everything they have.
Is Israel still at war with the west bank? As they're still doing the same thing, and under such circumstances you say it's ok.
Your first question cannot be answered because Egypt has always refused Palestinian refugees. Gaza was Egyptian territory but Egypt does not want them back.
Egypt’s reasons vary. One stated reason was that they fear that Palestinian refugees will attack Israel from Egyptian soil and threaten the 40 year peace between the nations. Another reason is that Egypt had its own problem with extremists and accused Hamas of backing them. A third reason which we really shouldn’t overlook is that Egypt and Israel want to improve their economic relationship and increase bilateral trade to $700 million a year. Fourth, Egypt also brings up the concepts of displacement and right of return but that’s a level way beyond my understanding so I’ll insert it as a fact but cannot speak to it in any way.
International law is such that Israel would have a lot of difficulty keeping Rafah Rafah (for lack of a better word to describe that clusterfuck of a border) if Egypt was interested in fighting for its integrity. They’re not. Jordan has also always refused Palestinian refugees.
Finally, Israel has made many overtures for peace. Those overtures have destroyed political careers and resulted in at least one assassination. Despite the overtures, the attacks still continued.
I’m not willing to engage unless you can tell me about some of these Israeli attempts at peace. Show me that you have some understanding of the other side and we can talk. But otherwise, I get very bored without balance.
Why did control of the border turn into Egypt refuses to have a completely open border? We've already established that Israel controls what goes in and out of Egypts border, as you need permission from Israel to enter Gaza through Rafah. I'll paste the wiki sentence in case you missed it and leave this discussion there's no point in saying anything else.
"Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval."
Every overture of peace from Israel has contained poisoned pills. Lasting peace cannot be made in this manner, see Treaty of Versailles. Everyone except Israel has now accepted the 1967 borders, even Hamas. The two state solution is impossible unless Israel gives up what it has taken in the West Bank, just look at the pockmarks on a map.
Did you really bring up the assassination that the current right wing government in Israel called for publicly and don't think there's a problem with Israels leadership?
I'm afraid to say that I missed the latest Hasbara episodes so I guess you won't respond.
Egypt determines it's own borders. Nobody is forcing Egypt to signs deals with Israel. Egypt does what it wants because Egypt is a sovereign state. The comment you're replying to has explained this very clearly and patiently.
> I'm afraid to say that I missed the latest Hasbara episodes so I guess you won't respond.
The sad thing is the parent got flagged and you're the one breaking the HN guidelines.
The question was if Israel can control how much food can enter Gaza no? You said that they have a border with Egypt, as if Israel does not control what goes in and out there and they do not have an effective blockade. It clearly does not matter if Egypt allows them to do this or not.
In response to someone that basically said "say something nice about Israel or I wont talk to you".
Israel controls the Rafah border crossing via treaties with Egypt. Egypt does not have autonomous control over that crossing, unless they break treaties.
I think the rockets being fired into Israel is one threat, but the far greater threat is just Hamas repeating the October 7th invasion again.
They've said, numerous times, that they will do it - invade Israel again and again, killing as many Israelis as they can. (Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw.)
If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future.
> Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw
I'm curious, is your claim that one of the current leaders of Hamas said this? If so I'd love to read the quote.
> If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to
prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future.
One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance.
Anyway, moving on I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power. They have enormous technological and economic superiority as well as the full backing of the US government. It seems like dysfunctional organizational dynamics are a problem here, because Israel had all the intel it could possibly have needed to see this attack coming and stop it, but it didn't. So personally I think looking internally rather than externally is the most likely way to secure the safety of the Israeli populace into the future.
If you want to see what Hamas says, or the tone of a segment of regional discussions, I encourage you to use your favorite translator on https://www.aljazeera.net/. The arabic-language views are not always shared on the english-language version. The blog section is particularly aggressive at times.
For the most inflammatory statements by leaders you can look at https://www.memri.org/, whose translation choices are sometimes disputed, and who is accused of being some sort of CIA-backed saboteur for choosing the worst statements without enough context, but I think can give you an idea.
I'm familiar with Memri, although it seems like less of a CIA op and more of an Israeli / American Zionist op. Then again, there might be a lot of overlap between the two :P (Wiki claims that it's founded by "Israeli ex-intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser")
I'm no fan of Hamas. Although speaking personally, I will never condemn any attacks of theirs on Israeli military installations or IDF tanks/soldiers. But any civilian killed intentionally is a war crime. I was really saddened to hear about the attack in Jerusalem where two Hamas gunmen killed a couple of civilians. To me that stuff is totally unjustifiable.
I wish Hamas would give up dreams of reclaiming the originally stolen Palestinian land; it's not right that the land was taken but for better or for worse Israel is here to stay. I would like to see them fight a defensive war, with any offensive operations (i.e. crossing into Israel) focused only on military targets. In reality that's unlikely to ever happen, but if Hamas just did that then they would have the indisputable moral highground, instead of the current reality where in absolute numbers they commit way less evil than Israel but are clearly full of darkness themselves.
If Hamas would take up a defensive stance, there would never be any conflict. The only reason Israel attacks has been in response to terrorism.
You seem to view Hamas as just an extreme pro-Palestinian faction that's gone too far, but actually they're a terrorism group in every sense of the word, not tomorrow's leaders. (See video of Hamas throwing Fatah members off a rooftop one by one to their deaths, as one of numerous examples, besides that USA, EU, UK, Canada ... all class it was a terrorist organisation)
> If Hamas would take up a defensive stance, there would never be any conflict. The only reason Israel attacks has been in response to terrorism.
Proof that this claim is not true is the occupation of West Bank which has submitted itself to Israeli rule without violent opposition. I am sure that you have heard the long list of grievances of its population against the Israeli occupation a million times by now, so I will spare you from going much into it here (military law for Palestinians, imprisonment of children, night raids just to show force and keep IDF soldiers trained etc).
Additionally, using the "terrorism" label is fairly meaningless when the label is assigned by one's enemy that keeps the land under occupation. An enemy that has an overwhelming technological, economical and military advantage that makes a direct confrontation impossible. While Israeli airplanes and drones are leveling residential buildings from distance, they are calling shooting of primitive rockets and guerrilla-style warfare terrorism. Every occupying power in the history of humanity, ever since the word "terrorism" has been introduced into our vocabulary, has called every resistance group terrorists. Also, the countries that you named that have publicly proclaimed Hamas a terrorist groups are all close NATO allies that mostly follow the lead of USA, which in turn strongly supports Israel's position.
We can all agree that Oct 7 attack of Hamas was horrible and that attrocities were committed during which a little under 400 soldiers and a little over 800 civillians were murdered. But if you will call that terrorism, then you have to be logically consistent and call the subsequent revenge-bombing of Gaza (in order to punish Gazans and Hamas alike for striking) what it is, given the death toll, siege conditions, genocidal rhetoric of Israel's leadership, and the devastation inflicted even just in the first few weeks, before the ground offensive even began. About 4000 children were dead before the ground invasion. Children. Children are not Hamas fighters who invaded Israel. Call Hamas whatever you want, but be consistent and just when applying labels.
Can't give anything but acceptance of civilian casualties when the Hamas gameplan is literally to attack from civilian areas.
At the end of the day, Hamas is deliberately putting civilian lives in the line of fire, and are wholly to blame for this. Chastising Israel for deaths caused by this strategy is as good as legitimizing attacks from civilian territories, and will only increase this in the future.
This is considering that Israel had done a degree due diligence in harm mitigation (roof knocking, evacuations). Contrast this with Hamas, which deliberately attacks civilian areas.
See my reply here for why the claim that Israel is actually trying to prevent civilian deaths (except to the point at which USA stops using its veto power to protect it, at least) is not taken seriously by almost anyone other than Israel's staunchest supporters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38589626 . The level of devastation and the amount of killing that has been inflicted on Gaza by Israel so far deserves chastising regardless of one's opinion on viable military strategy — and this is not just a personal opinion of a random guy on the internet; refer to UN General Assembly resolutions (such as the one passed yesterday, Tuesday Dec 12) for what the vast majority of the world thinks about it.
West Bank is the best example of how Israel treats Palestinian civilians when there is no armed conflict. Hamas cannot be used as an excuse in that territory. To remove the reason for violent resistance to exist, there needs to be a viable alternative provided that would take away the reason to keep fighting. When Gazans look at the West Bank, they do not see a viable alternative but a life of enslavement, and that gives Hamas an easy way to recruit from a brutally oppressed population that feels that they have nothing to lose anyway.
Has Israel, being the overwhelmingly dominant force in the territory that holds all the cards, made an effort to provide that alternative? The evidence presented in [1] seems to suggest the contrary — that Netanyahu explicitly supported Hamas in order to keep violent resistance active and prevent Palestine uniting behind the peaceful faction of PA that he would then be forced to negotiate a two-state solution with. He, and those like him who do not wish to see the conflict end (for reasons that I imagine are related to the end-goal of establishing Greater Israel?), have actively decided to keep the violent resistance ongoing.
> According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Hamas is a resistance movement and they have every right to resist by any means necessary.
the same way the French resisted against the Nazis or the algerians against the French occupation.
I don't hear french resistance being called terrorists despite sabotage operations, assassinations of nazi personnel and executing collaborators.
they carried a successful military raid, captured hostages and exchanged them for Palestinian hostages.
I completely reject the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group by countries that won't even join the international criminal court to protect their war criminals.
Yes, I agree those are war crimes and October 7th is called a Tuesday in the West Bank. You're welcome to read about the torture programs by the IDF from reputable organizations like humans right watch, amnesty international or even former IDF soldiers (your own people) explaining their tactics to terrorize the Palestinian population.
I have more trust in those organizations as well as former IDF soldiers (who overcame the brainwashing, grew a conscience and spoke up) than the repeated lies in the zionist controlled media (40 babies? who lies about stuff like that?).
You can read more about resistance under international law and how it's defined by the U.N charter.
No side in this conflict has that. When they reach peace is when both sides would have found that elusive highground.
> clearly full of darkness
Yes, they are. They've been abandoned [1]. Note though, Hamas is not designated as a terror organization by most of the global south; and al-Qassam, its militant wing, doesn't take orders from Hamas.
[1] In fact, other studies show that Palestinians feel profoundly, existentially, alone: https://archive.is/rLq02
To your last paragraph, as I understand it, 9/11 was also moreso caused by lack of intelligence being acted on properly, rather than being completely blindsided. Of course, it may be that all the surveillance measures could mitigate future terrorist attacks, but in reality the cost is high and the benefits are empirically not great. I think that if Israel withdraws now and focuses on defense, it may not prevent (civilian, primarily) deaths entirely, but it will be more workable for a lasting truce in the future. I don't want to say that those deaths would be a "sacrifice" or "necessary evil", but it is a realistic cost, as unfair as it is.
Not saying I disagree, but where does the 20,000 overwhelmingly civilian number come from? One of the things that seems really difficult about Hamas is from my understanding, they do not wear a uniform and shelter amongst non-combatantants.
A fair question, but it is really not difficult to see why the claim must be true. Here [1] is one source for the death toll in Gaza by direct military action (not including people burried under the rubble of destroyed buildings, dying of starvation, all the lives that disease will claim over the following weeks and months and so on).
About 70% of killed people are estimated to be women and children. Those are not Hamas fighters. Even if you assume that every adult male that has been killed was a Hamas fighter (which is obviously not going to be the case), and even if we pretend that men being killed is okay, that is still 70% of civilians dying compared to enemy combatants. That is the basis for "overwhelmingly civilian" deaths claim.
Israel also constantly claimed that Hamas is hiding in tunnels underground, yet they were killing people by bombing residential buildings in a display of logical contradiction. That alone will lead one to conclude that they are mostly killing civilians.
> I'm curious, is your claim that one of the current leaders of Hamas said this? If so I'd love to read the quote.
I saw a video of this today, the quote was from 2019 though (and he was condemned for it and walked it back), so maybe this shouldn't be taken "too seriously" (it was on my mind cause I saw it today, mostly):
> In July 2019, Hamad urged members of the Palestinian diaspora to kill "Jews everywhere". His comments were characterized as incitement to genocide by Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America[18] and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[19] His rhetoric was widely condemned by other Palestinians and he later stated that he supports the Hamas policy of "limiting its resistance to the Zionist occupation that usurps Palestine’s land and defiles its holy sites".
> One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance.
Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overwhelmingly civilian". Hamas doesn't publish numbers of militants vs. civilians, as far as I know the only good source for that figure is the IDF, which says more or less a 2:1 ratio (civilian:militant). Is that "overwhelmingly" civilian?
Secondly, what's the alternative? Leave Hamas in power, trying to do this again and again? It's true that Israel doesn't have many good options here, it's all variations of bad, but taking out Hamas is a decent way to gain a lot of security. (And is better for the long-term peace process, IMO, and better for Gazans.)
> [...] I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power.
I thought so too, but after talking a lot about this I think you're wrong. Hamas aren't idiots - they're a smart, increasingly well-funded enemy. Israel has a lot of capabilities, but Hamas is right on the border. They are fully capable of waiting a few years and then launching another attack using other means. They are fully capable of eroding Israel's ability to defend the border by sending "peaceful civilians" to the border, putting Israel in a position of either shooting at civilians or accepting many thousands of people on the border (similar happened in 2018).
Their rockets are getting better, their intel gathering is getting better, etc. It is incredibly naive (and arrogant!) to think you can forever outwit an enemy. Guerilla armies have beaten larger forces many times.
Not to mention, the more defense you throw at them, the more economically costly this is for you,
Israel's IDF claims 55 commanders and perhaps 5000 Hamas fighters killed, while 17,700 civilians have been killed (over 3:1 ratio). Apparent targeted killings of journalists and aid workers don't help.
> I saw a video of this today, the quote was from 2019 though (and he was condemned for it and walked it back), so maybe this shouldn't be taken "too seriously" (it was on my mind cause I saw it today, mostly):
Thanks so much for the quote. Very interesting context. Also as an aside the fact that the name is "Hamad" makes my brain keep reading it as Hamas because my subconscious is trained to consider the nearest keyboard key when evaluating typos :P
I haven't heard of this Hamad guy, in the past couple months I've been reading about current and future Hamas leadership but I still have plenty of gaps.
I find the life stories of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Deif really fascinating. The former because it's so obvious why he became radicalized (his whole village was ethnically cleansed by the IDF), and the latter because the idea of someone who's limbless and wheelchair-bound and spends his remaining days sitting in dark tunnels plotting vengeance upon Israel is a really haunting image.
> Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overwhelmingly civilian". Hamas doesn't publish numbers of militants vs. civilians, as far as I know the only good source for that figure is the IDF, which says more or less a 2:1 ratio (civilian:militant). Is that "overwhelmingly" civilian?
Simply put, yes, killing two civilians for every one combatant is overwhelmingly civilian, although I don't believe that 2:1 ratio for a moment. And I'm struggling to see how anyone who's not ideologically possessed could believe such numbers. Even if we do the classic imperialist playbook tactic of considering every male >= age 16 as a combatant, the number of children and women killed alone probably approaches half of all casualties if not already north of that.
I don't consider the IDF a "good source" at all, like all government organizations they lie constantly although I suspect they lie more than most :P But in context I take your usage of "good source" to mean "those actually providing hard data".
> Hamas aren't idiots - they're a smart, increasingly well-funded enemy. Israel has a lot of capabilities, but Hamas is right on the border. They are fully capable of waiting a few years and then launching another attack using other means
Their means are limited. They could maybe get creative and fly some drones over the border and drop some grenades or something, but I don't see the potential for a mass casualty event like happened in October 7, if Israel is actually watching its border properly and not ignoring obvious warnings of impending attack as has been frequently reported regarding Oct 7.
To be clear though, I agree that Hamas are smart and are evolving their tactics. Apparently Deif is to blame/praise for the latter. Ignoring the morality, the attack of Oct 7 was quite brilliant and integrated a number of different attack vectors, so I'm with you there.
Where Hamas really shines, like many insurgent groups, is fighting on their home turf. If you're curious you can go watch the Hamas propaganda combat videos (Asa Winstanley on Twitter has them all if you click on the Media tab), and it's a really interesting look at what insurgent warfare looks like on the ground. It's really hard to fight an enemy that can pop out of tunnel exits disguised to look like a vehicle or a house or a bunch of bushes, quickly fire a locally-manufactured Yassin RPG, or place a point-blank IED on a tank, and then disappear back into the tunnels.
This is why I don't see how Israel will actually succeed in destroying Hamas. They will certainly kill many Hamas militants, and probably score some kills on some upper leadership, but I don't see them taking down the entire leadership network nor eroding popular support for Hamas (I've seen no data but I expect that support for Hamas is as high as it's ever been since that's always what happens in war, doubly so when your land is the one being counter-invaded)
> Not to mention, the more defense you throw at them, the more economically costly this is for you,
This is just not a concern. The money US gives Israel every year vastly eclipses the amount they would need to spend on actually defending themselves properly.
> Simply put, yes, killing two civilians for every one combatant is overwhelmingly civilian, although I don't believe that 2:1 ratio for a moment. And I'm struggling to see how anyone who's not ideologically possessed could believe such numbers.
Well, Gaza's MOH put out the 17k number, without breaking it down into militants vs civilians. How many militants do you think have actually been killed? If you are assuming that the IDF is targeting civilians, I guess it makes sense, but if you start from the assumption that they are trying to kill militants, then several thousand militants killed is reasonable.
> I don't consider the IDF a "good source" at all, like all government organizations they lie constantly although I suspect they lie more than most :P
So this is an ideological point, but worth going into. I don't think anyone should implicitly trust any source. But the IDF is part of a democracy - they have checks and balances in the form of government oversight, more importantly Israel has a free press that can check up on claims. Not to mention, hundreds of thousands of Israelis serve in the army and, Israel being a democracy, can speak up and report any abuses that happen or lies that get told.
Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.
I want to contrast this with other sources of numbers - e.g. Hamas can lie with impunity, because no one is checking up on them and they can (and do) execute people for saying the wrong thing. We know they've lied about numbers, e.g. the hospital bombing that they claimed was an Israeli attack that killed 500 people, only everyone now agrees that it wasn't Israel, and didn't kill so many people.
(Though also worth stressing that the total figures given by Gaza MOH are more or less in line with what the IDF is saying, except for not breaking it down by civilian vs. militant.)
> This is why I don't see how Israel will actually succeed in destroying Hamas
Maybe. You could definitely be right. Though there are outcomes here that don't depend on total destruction of Hamas. E.g. Hamas surrendering.
I feel like people forget what winning a war actually looks like. Most wars in history were actually won, when one side did so much damage to the other side that they realized it wasn't worth continuing to fight, and surrendered.
Most of the wars that e.g. the US has engaged in were just not that important to US's security, in the long run - so they had no real need to win. So most wars didn't really end, they "fizzled out".
This war is different. Israel looks at it as a matter of survival. That's a very different dynamic.
> Their means are limited. They could maybe get creative and fly some drones over the border and drop some grenades or something, but I don't see the potential for a mass casualty event like happened in October 7, if Israel is actually watching its border properly and not ignoring obvious warnings of impending attack as has been frequently reported regarding Oct 7.
Do you think the army can be on high alert for five years? Ten? Defend against possible other creative paths that we have no idea about? If I were Hamas I could think of dozens of other things to try at this point.
Also, it's not like Israel was purposefully ignoring obvious threats, this is an "in hindsight" perspective. There's a cost to addressing each potential threat, both monetarily, but also in lives lost. And Israel (rightly) doesn't have any confidence that 4 years from now, whatever actions it takes will be considered legitimate, even if there is evidence it's a new Hamas plot.
> This is just not a concern. The money US gives Israel every year vastly eclipses the amount they would need to spend on actually defending themselves properly.
I don't think that's true. The US's aid is about 10% of the IDF's budget, a figure I'm not sure takes into account the current war btw. But the economic cost of e.g. having 50k more people serving in the army is also the opportunity cost of them not working in industry in this time, etc.
Sibling post goes sufficiently into why the IDF cannot be taken at their words as well as how the Gaza Ministry of Health can by (btw. the Gazan MoH is as much a part of Hamas as the UK department of health is a part of the Conservative party).
However I’d like to talk a little about the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh. At first the IDF claimed she was shot by Palestinian resistance, then they claimed she was shot on accident, and finally—in light of overwhelming evidence—they admitted to have targeted her. The soldier that shot her has not been named, let alone punished. There has been no legal action taken against anybody within the Israel army, no checks, not balanced introduced to prevent a murder like this in the future, no nothing. A murder without consequences of a journalist does not exactly inspire free press.
Now regarding the al-Ahli hospital bombing on October 17th. There is nothing conclusive about who is at fault. Not everybody agrees that it wasn’t Israel. What we do know is that, (a) yes the number of casualties was probably inflated, (b) it was likely not an Israeli airstrike, (c) the evidence originally cited by Israel showed an Iron Dome rocket intercepting a Hamas rocket in Israel too far from the hospital to have been the cause. This leaves number of possibilities, including: another misfired Hamas rocket, an artillery shell fired from Israel. News sources seem to lean on the former, but there is no consensus.
What we do know is that Israel shouted a bunch of unrelated stuff which they claimed were evidence of it being a Hamas rocket, evidence which was later proven insufficient, unrelated, or just wrong. Officials within the IDF also claimed to have lied in the past, but this time they were being honest.
I'd say Hamas numbers have been reliable based on past conflicts. So, I don't know why you're dismissing them.
>> Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.
Tell me more about the accountability and the cost of those lies and crimes by the IDF. How many IDF soldiers rot in prison for the crimes they committed and the crimes that have been documented by HRW? It's zero.
Even when the crimes are fully recorded, they get a handful of months and a commuted sentence.
I think it's interesting to believe that Israel can effectively and permanently take out Hamas (and the like), while they cannot prevent October 7th. Either they have sufficient intelligence/surveillance or they don't. The last "election" in 2006 was the year after a majority of the population of Gaza was born (median age 18), and politically, it seems Netanyahu prefers Hamas to any less radical representation, because fear is a tool.
Furthermore, the leadership of Hamas doesn't even reside within Gaza (in Qatar), though it's not like Israel holds it's targeted killings within its borders, either. The people of both sides suffer, but those outside and those with political power on both sides are eliminationist. I think it's important to listen to member of cabinet when they say "nukes are on the table" or a settler when they say that everything from the Nile to Tripoli are rightfully theirs, when you evaluate similar Hamas rhetoric.
> I think it's interesting to believe that Israel can effectively and permanently take out Hamas (and the like), while they cannot prevent October 7th. Either they have sufficient intelligence/surveillance or they don't.
That's a false dichotomy. Preventing surprise attacks on your soil, given an enemy that is smart and tries to outsmart you, is a completely different thing to engaging in war.
> The people of both sides suffer, but those outside and those with political power on both sides are eliminationist. I think it's important to listen to member of cabinet when they say "nukes are on the table" or a settler when they say that everything from the Nile to Tripoli are rightfully theirs, when you evaluate similar Hamas rhetoric.
These are fringe views among the Israeli public, which you can see because that minister was widely condemned for that remark and withdrew it, and most statements made by Israeli politicians state the opposite.
Hamas's leaders have repeated the claim that they will perform October 7th over and over and over. And they actually did it when having the chance. There can be no doubt in any rational person that, were they to have the means to do it again, they would.
Both sides are simply not equal here in their desires, and there's no reading of the facts that shows otherwise.
(And btw, like many people on the Israeli center-left, I hate the settlers too, and definitely consider some of their actions to be terrorism much like Hamas's, though far smaller in scope, fortunately.)
> Israel claims that 55 Hamas commanders have been killed. What is the proper ratio of that to civilian deaths (17,700)?
I have no idea where you're getting that figure. Israel says that it estimates are that 5-7k militants have been killed.
> How does Israel know there are bunker/tunnels under the Al Sharif hospital? They built them.
What is your point? That Israel built some tunnels at some point doesn't prove anything. The Israeli claim is that an entire tunnel network was built out by Hamas for the purpose of using it as headquarters and to commit terror attacks. Which is true and verified.
You can’t take out Hamas with military force unless you eliminate every Palestinian in Gaza. “Hamas” is just the current name for oppressed people pushed to their limits who are using the scraps at their disposal to fight back against decades of abuse. So long as there is an apartheid state there will be people who fight back with whatever they can get their hands on, no matter what they call themselves.
Israel has all the power to end this, but the current government and their supporters view Palestinians as less than human. Coming to any table with that mentality will result in a less than equitable solution which will just perpetuate the oppressive lives of those in Gaza… and allow “Hamas” to live on.
My batshit crazy idea to resolve this… put 10 Israeli mothers who lost children on October 7 and 10 Palestinian mothers who have lost children in the bombings since into a room. Have them share their stories, the memories of those they lost, grieve together… and then task them with finding a solution to make sure no Israeli or Palestinian mother ever has to feel that again. I’d bet everything that they’d come out of that room with an equitable solution.
Israelis don't view them as less than human, that's ridiculous and refuted by numerous polls and surveys of Israeli society. Israeli Arabs are represented in the knesset and have equal rights to any Israeli citizens. (Although in places like East Jerusalem which is neither Israeli nor West Bank, they are treated halfway in terms of security restrictions or building rights, which is where most of the accusations of discrimination come from.)
Hamas are not freedom fighters of oppression. They are an implacable anti-semitic bloodthirsty terrorist group who murder and oppress Palestinians as well as Israelis.
The true resolution is for Palestinians to give up on the idea of destroying Israel proper and cease the non-stop attacks on Jews from 1929 until today, which in turn will result in no need to monitor and control against these constant threats on Israeli lives.
Hamas killed Bedouin Arabs on October 7th too.
Even according to the way you wish to view the conflict, after the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, what excuse did Hamas have to commit murders of Israeli civilians?
I've got a question for you. When you say that Israeli Arabs are represented and citizens, why do you ignore the residents of Gaza and the West Bank, who are subject to Israeli military rule and/or blockade and have no representation in the government.
Palestinians have been made stateless by Israel, but if they are functionally subject to Israeli apartheid and martial law within their "own borders" then sovereignty is a fiction is it not?
I can't vote in the United States. Does that make the United States and apartheid regime? Of course not, I'm not a US citizen.
The Palestinians who stayed in Israel became Israeli citizens, and have all the same rights as other Israelis. The Palestinians who fled Israel (by choice or force), did not become citizens. They were refugees for 20 years before Israel had control over them (and in that time were not granted citizenship in any other neighboring country, nor were they given the option to create their own state by the then-occupiers of that land).
The situation in the West Bank is indeed complicated, but the agreed-upon-by-all-sides solution is that it will eventually become a separate state (the two state solution). So it doesn't make much sense to wonder why they don't get voting rights in Israel - they are not citizens, and the agreed-upon path is for them to have their own state, not become citizens.
In Gaza the situation is much simpler - Israel doesn't occupy it anymore (or didn't before October 7th, no idea what will happen now).
You throw in the word blockade as if that's the same thing as Israeli control over Gaza, but it's not. The blockade was a legitimate response to Hamas carrying out attacks on Israel. Sovereign nations likewise sanction and/or blockade other countries for these kinds of attacks.
Does the US have control over Iran because of the sanctions it imposes? Is Iran not free?
> I can't vote in the United States. Does that make the United States and apartheid regime? Of course not, I'm not a US citizen.
The attempts to characterize Palestinians as foreigners to deny apartheid are appalling. By that logic, South Africa could have solved apartheid by declaring itself a whites-only country, changing constitution, so every black person could be labeled "foreigner", even if belonging to families born and living in the land for generations.
The only acceptable way to solve apartheid is by ending it, not fixing the dictionary to change the meaning of words like foreigner.
But that's a completely different situation! Palestinian were never citizens of Israel. For the first twenty years of Israel's existence, they were refugees militarily controlled by other countries. So they are foreigners.
You might think the founding of Israel was itself an injustice, that there was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, etc. Those are valid views (and I think they do have some merit, though less than most people think).
But you can't say that there is no difference between Palestinians that stayed during the founding of Israel and were granted citizenship, and between the Palestinians who fled to neighboring countries that proceeded to attack Israel hoping to get all the land, and then lost the war and the land.
A lot of people sought refuge in neighboring countries after the Ukraine invasion, for the duration of the war. At this point a Russian victory seems likely. Can you fathom those Ukrainians being denied entry in the country after the war, because now they are foreigners? Worse, do you think it would be legitimate for them be labeled "foreigners" while even still living inside Ukraine?
This is complicated by the fact that every other refugee situation is handled by an organization that is explicitly rehoming them. At the absolute least, their children will be citizens of the nations they have been moved to. This is in stark contrast to the situation we are talking about, where people can literally be adopted into the refugee status.
Edit: I would also be surprised if Russia does let previous citizens back in to claim any property they had. Do we have reason to think they will?
That's a different situation. They are Ukrainian citizens. There were no Palestinian citizens before because there was no state there, neither Israel nor Palestine.
There was land there, they and their ancestors inhabited it for countless generations before present, so they must be considered legitimate citizens, regardless of the names it had back then or today. There was no modern countries in Americas before Europeans arrived, yet we don't call amerindians foreigners because of that.
States are not necessary for populations to exist or thrive. Politically homogenous states united under a defined hierarchy is a new phenomenon; and much newer than the discovery of agriculture.
Jews, Christians and Muslims in the area were coexisting peacefully under Ottoman rule. I wonder what happened to result in this situation? Possibly illegal settlements? Ever heard of The Nakba?
> Israelis don't view them as less than human, that's ridiculous and refuted by numerous polls and surveys of Israeli society.
Never said all Israelis, just Netanyahu and his ilk, the ones in charge. Some are on record calling Palestinians animals. And if you listen to how they (Bibi and crew, plus IDF officials in interviews) talk about Palestinians, it’s pretty clear they view them as enemies not humans, hence my “less than” comment. There are also some lovely man-on-the-street interviews with random Israelis in Tel Aviv saying some pretty gross things if you want some civilian opinions too.
> Israeli Arabs are represented in the knesset and have equal rights to any Israeli citizens. (Although in places like East Jerusalem which is neither Israeli nor West Bank, they are treated halfway in terms of security restrictions or building rights, which is where most of the accusations of discrimination come from.)
So the different forms of IDs, different license plates, court systems, etc. are all so the occupying force know to treat them with extra super equality? I’m surprised they don’t have separate water fountains and restrooms.
> Hamas are not freedom fighters of oppression. They are an implacable anti-semitic bloodthirsty terrorist group who murder and oppress Palestinians as well as Israelis.
Never said they were freedom fighters, more like a natural reactionary response. I just think that if you put any group of people in an open air prison for long enough, you’re bound to get some… push back. There’s a Chris Rock line that nails the sentiment…“I don’t agree, but I understand.”
> The true resolution is for Palestinians to give up on the idea of destroying Israel proper and cease the non-stop attacks on Jews from 1929 until today, which in turn will result in no need to monitor and control against these constant threats on Israeli lives. Hamas killed Bedouin Arabs on October 7th too.
The true resolution is for Israelis to give up on the idea of pushing Palestinians out of Israel and ceasing the apartheid, which in turn will give Palestinians hope and a fair shot at life, that will then cause Hamas to naturally dissolve since it will no longer serve any purpose. Israel killed Israelis in Gaza bombings since October 7th too.
> Even according to the way you wish to view the conflict, after the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, what excuse did Hamas have to commit murders of Israeli civilians?
Any reasonable human knows there is no excuse to murder anyone, but civilians especially. I can ask the same thing of you… since 2005 and excluding random IDF sniper picks, settler kills, and the post-October 7 bombings (because those would just wipe the floor with your numbers), what excuse did Israel have to commit murder of over 3000 Palestinian civilians? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_wa...) They owe Israel a lot more if you’re keeping score…
I don’t wish to view things any way, I do view things through my own lived experiences just like everyone else. But I also spend a good amount of time trying to imagine things from other perspectives. To get an idea of where my perspective comes from in this whole conversation, one thing I strongly believe is that those in power hold the majority of responsibility. I know there are a lot of complicated layers to this discussion but I always come back to that.
I'm sorry to say this so bluntly, but I believe you are mistaken about a lot of what is going on, You're making very basic factual mistakes in your comment.
> So the different forms of IDs, different license plates, court systems, etc. are all so the occupying force know to treat them with extra super equality? I’m surprised they don’t have separate water fountains and restrooms.
You are mixing up two completely different groups. One is the Israeli arab citizens, which is what the parent comment was referring to, and to which none of what you wrote applies. They are by law equal to any other Israeli, don't have separate court systems IDs or license plates.
You are probably conflating them with West Bank Palestinians, that don't have Israeli citizenship, and are under military control.
> The true resolution is for Israelis to give up on the idea of pushing Palestinians out of Israel and ceasing the apartheid, which in turn will give Palestinians hope and a fair shot at life, that will then cause Hamas to naturally dissolve since it will no longer serve any purpose. Israel killed Israelis in Gaza bombings since October 7th too.
Israel isn't trying to push Palestinians out of Israel. The ambition that leaders on both sides agree on is that the Palestinians will have their own state. Israel certainly hasn't done anything to advance that peaceful solution in the last 15 years, but it's not trying to push Palestinians anywhere, and before that there was a peace process in which Israel multiple times gave Palestinians offers that were rejected (and walked away from with no alternatives proposed, in some cases).
> I just think that if you put any group of people in an open air prison for long enough, you’re bound to get some… push back. There’s a Chris Rock line that nails the sentiment…“I don’t agree, but I understand.”
That's a great quote!
That said, you like many people call Gaza an open-air prison. What do you mean by that? It's evocative imagery for sure, but in what sense is it true?
Israel left Gaza, removed its settlers, and let them rule themselves, exactly as you propose. This didn't cause Hamas to dissolve - Gazans elected Hamas which then carried out many attacks over the last 15 years.
What now?
> To get an idea of where my perspective comes from in this whole conversation, one thing I strongly believe is that those in power hold the majority of responsibility. I know there are a lot of complicated layers to this discussion but I always come back to that.
I agree with this to some extent, and Israel certainly has a moral failing here in not helping advance peace in the last 15 years. As the stronger party I think it has a moral obligation to keep trying and not give up.
That said, I think it really is true that the fundamental reason there is no peace is that the Palestinians haven't given up on getting rid of all the Jews from Israel and getting all their land back, and thus keep choosing violence against Israel instead of accepting peaceful solutions. This whole mess could've ended many times by the Palestinians simply compromising on any of numerous occasions, which is the only way things ever change.
Both sides have some merit to their claims on the land, and no side is realistically going away - the only peaceful way out of this is if both sides compromise. Israel has shown itself willing to do so multiple times.
>> Israel isn't trying to push Palestinians out of Israel. The ambition that leaders on both sides agree on is that the Palestinians will have their own state.
Yes and what a glorious state it will be. Here is how much land Palestinians have now (Famous image shown to Obama)
Some of your comments in this thread are crossing too far into battle, which is the spirit we asked everyone not to comment in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662). I realize that you have extremely legitimate reasons for feeling the way you do, but even so, I need to ask you to abide by that request. The same goes for the users who are arguing with you and I am going to post the same thing to some of them.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
> Israel isn't trying to push Palestinians out of Israel. The ambition that leaders on both sides agree on is that the Palestinians will have their own state.
That's not true at all.
The 2 most recent Prime Ministers of Israel have made it very clear that they will ensure that no Palestinian state can ever exist. Naftali Bennett is the leader of a settler party whose explicit goal is the expropriation and colonisation of the West Bank at the expense of the Palestinian population.
Hamas are, obviously, wedded to this ridiculous and genocidal notion that they can clear Israel of Jews.
> That said, I think it really is true that the fundamental reason there is no peace is that the Palestinians haven't given up on getting rid of all the Jews from Israel and getting all their land back, and thus keep choosing violence against Israel instead of accepting peaceful solutions.
And Israel persists in fostering the settler movement in the West Bank, forcing Palestinians into enclaves and reducing them to second class status in what is ostensibly their homeland.
>
Israel has shown itself willing to do so multiple times.
What is going on in the West Bank is not Israeli compromise.
I could just as easily turn that around and say Hamas (which is the legitimately elected government of Gaza) is responding to continuous attacks from Israel. Gaza is the world’s largest concentration camp, blockaded from land, sea and air. In 2018 and 2019 they held continual peaceful protests, which Israel responded to by killing 223 Palestinians and maiming many more.
Hell, one of the co-founders of Hamas watched his uncle get murdered in front of him by the IDF in the Khan Younis massacre; he described it a very formative experience, as you might imagine.
History did not begin on October 7, 2023 with the Al-Aqsa Flood.
My personal opinion? Israel’s trying to prosecute its genocide slowly enough that it won’t be noticed / stopped. But if you’re looking for some more expansive reading on the subject you can start here.
According to the very article you linked, it seems like the Palestinians who were killed were trying to invade Israel: "with thousands approaching the fence"
The rocket launches are usually framed as response to massacres, if you read the launch announcements, btw.
In any case, it's quite doubtful that Israel would stop its aggression, if Gaza would stop firing rockets. The goal has been to "eliminate Hamas" for a few months already, if you want to believe the Israel government's statements. There's no "but if the rocket attacks stop" escape hatch in there. So what it's doing is not really self-defense against rocket attacks, here.
Negotiated or unilateral ceasefire is one tactical way to stop the rocket attacks, right now. It's much cheaper than war, too.
Hamas's way is violent resistance against a violent occupation. The occupation is truly bad. I don't think anyone should expect all Palestinians to just take it. Some will always organize to strike against the occupier, and take pride in it.
So the strategic way would be engaging in honest political solution to the decades long conflict. Israel as an occupier and a much more powerful party in this, has to be the one leading this, if it wants long term peace and not just a truce.
And of course, Israel can also continue it's variant on a quest of "de-Ba'athification" of Gaza, perhaps with similar consequences in the future...
The bombing would stop tomorrow if hamas were to release the hostages and surrender. They started this war and it is completely in their power to end it so every death in gaza is their fault.
The bombing, shootings, mass arrests without charges (and associated torture) will not stop if Hamas did that. It has been going on for decades against the Palestinians. https://ifamericansknew.org/
No, I don't think that is a reasonable take at all.
1. This is warfare, not civil law. Hamas, which is the sovereign in Gaza (there has been no Israeli military presence there for years), commited an act of war in which hundreds were killed, raped, and kidnapped. Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again. Otherwise, it breaks the most basic contract between citizen and state ("I give up on violence and in turn you protect me from violence").
2. The aggressors (both in the field and leadership) are still largely out there, and holding kidnapped civilians and soldiers. They don't get a pass just because the "aggression is over" (whatever that means, rockets are still being fired indiscriminately at Israeli cities and towns, which is a war crime by the way...)
3. The responsibility for the safety of the Gazan civilians is that of Hamas since, again, they are the sovereign in Gaza. We shouldn't absolve them of responsibility for picking a fight with a better armed opponent. The defense does not have to be proportionate since that would mean Israel cannot use it's Tanks, warplanes, etc. To imply that Israel should fight with it's hands tied behind its back is ridiculous since war is not fair. There are some international laws intended to reduce the suffering of those that are uninvolved. For example, what does have to be proportionate is the harm caused to civilians when attacking a military target on a case by case basis, to the best of your knowledge (note that, according to international law, the target can in fact be a hospital/school/etc if it's used for military purposes).
Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?
Israel absolutely has the right to fight Hamas. But on the question of whether it's really defense vs avenge on entire population, I urge you to go through recent nytimes article titled "Gaza After Nine Weeks of War" with an open mind [1]. Entire neighborhoods has been bombed to rubbles, parks and roads have been bulldozed. Every single civilian structures, hotels, homes, playgrounds, port- on a large stretch beside sea has been utterly destroyed.
That's not a picture of a moral army fighting insurgents embedded in Civilian population, it's the picture of a fight against the entire civilian population- or "mowing the grass" in Israeli military's parlance.
> it's the picture of a fight against the entire civilian population
Israel could have been done with that 6 weeks ago, if they didn't care about making the distinction. It's a pretty small region, after all.
Are they doing a good job in distinguishing military targets and civilians? No. Could anybody do better and still make progress towards the stated goal? Uncertain.
But I don't think that "Israel is not even trying to protect civilians" is supported by Israel's actions.
Please, go through the images first. Then explain to me, how bulldozing a park aids in Israel's effort to fight Hamas?
Again, Israel has the right to fight and fight hard, anyone would do that in their place. But I think many people in the west are awefully unaware of just the scale and magnitude of the destruction Israel has unleashed.
Yes, Israel has destroyed a lot of Gaza. This is a big problem, especially for the "day after" the war. As for many people being unaware - most people are unaware of anything to do with this conflict and only know a couple of slogans.
To your question - how does bulldozing a park help? I have no idea. Nobody outside of the IDF really knows the specific reasons for bombing some locations. I trust the IDF to not be shooting rockets at targets for no reason, which is probably a level of trust that most people don't share.
I'm sure someone with more military understanding could offer plausible theories, but if you're inclined to believe that Israel is trying to level Gaza just to hurt Gazans, I doubt any theory they offer would sound convincing.
The thing is, bulldozing is also happening in the West Bank, which has nothing to do with Hamas. Of note in this conflict, many genocidal comments from Israeli ministers, along with footage taken by IDF soldiers glorifying the destruction, several faked testimonies (admitted by the IDF) including the infamous calendar video, and a lack of evidence over claims that hospitals are being used as Hamas HQs, add up to a notable inconsistency between Israel’s stated aims and what is actually happening there.
As referred to in other comments, terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain were solved by coming to the negotiating table. Additionally, rather than bombing civilians which is more likely to Foster a new generation of terrorists out for revenge, Israel could simply spend that war chest donated by the US ($3bn / year and a $14bn aid package) invest in Gaza, give the citizens at least the daily minimum of water recommended by the UN (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...) and a reliable electricity supply. As the country responsible for these resources it is inhumane to do otherwise.
There is a correlation between treating people well, and a lack of violence from them.
Of that aid from the US to a distinctly non-third world country, this is probably the most interesting question. Countries very rarely give money for free, so something is being bought here. Nowhere is the question being asked what that is, but it points to unsaid motives.
> The thing is, bulldozing is also happening in the West Bank, which has nothing to do with Hamas.
Well, "nothing to do" is a bit of a stretch. There are active Hamas militants in the WB as well, and their actions on October 7th have polled at as having around 70% approval in the WB (which lest I be misunderstood, I mention to indicate a willingness to cooperate with Hamas by the populace, not as justification to attack them for their views).
> As referred to in other comments, terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain were solved by coming to the negotiating table.
Great. Israel did that multiple times, and Palestinians have never agreed to any deal offered them. Hamas isn't really trying to negotiate here though - their stated goal is to kill all Jews and take back the entire land.
> Additionally, rather than bombing civilians which is more likely to Foster a new generation of terrorists out for revenge, Israel could simply spend that war chest donated by the US ($3bn / year and a $14bn aid package) invest in Gaza,
So, disarm itself completely and hope that Hamas doesn't do what it promised it would do over and over, and has already proved capable of doing?
Gaza gets enormous amounts of financial aid, e.g. $600m in 2020 (just the first figure I found on Google). You know where that aid goes? Hamas steals it to finance its war against Israel.
You can literally see videos of them attacking food aid trucks coming into Gaza now and stealing the food for themselves.
> As the country responsible for these resources it is inhumane to do otherwise. There is a correlation between treating people well, and a lack of violence from them.
Israel isn't wholly responsible for these resources, Hamas is the government of Gaza and is responsible for it. Israel provides some water to Gaza and sells some electricity to Gaza.
But really, why do you think Gaza, despite enormous financial aid from around the world, is still reliant on Israel for so many things? It's not like Mexico is reliant on the US for everything.
> Well, "nothing to do" is a bit of a stretch. There are active Hamas militants in the WB as well, and their actions on October 7th have polled at as having around 70% approval in the WB (which lest I be misunderstood, I mention to indicate a willingness to cooperate with Hamas by the populace, not as justification to attack them for their views).
> Great. Israel did that multiple times, and Palestinians have never agreed to any deal offered them. Hamas isn't really trying to negotiate here though - their stated goal is to kill all Jews and take back the entire land.
Aside from proof here, so what? Rejection happened multiple times in NI before the Good Friday Agreement was drafted, this does not mean it should not be attempted again.
> So, disarm itself completely and hope that Hamas doesn't do what it promised it would do over and over, and has already proved capable of doing?
I didn't say that. Disarming completely is a very black and white statement, truces and cooperation are forged from small steps eg. a reliable and adequate water supply.
> Gaza gets enormous amounts of financial aid, e.g. $600m in 2020 (just the first figure I found on Google). You know where that aid goes? Hamas steals it to finance its war against Israel.
Again, finance is no good if basic human rights are not met eg. water, electricity (and arguably internet).
> Israel isn't wholly responsible for these resources, Hamas is the government of Gaza and is responsible for it. Israel provides some water to Gaza and sells some electricity to Gaza.
+ "We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba" - Agricultural Minister of Israel.
+ “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly...We will eliminate everything - they will regret it" - Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister.
+ "dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip an option" - Heritage Minister.
+ "Nakba? Expel them all,” Nissim Vaturi, deputy speaker for Israel’s parliament.
+ "There will be no electricity and no water (in Gaza), there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell." Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian.
+ "only solution left is "voluntary" evacuation of Gazans to countries around the world" - Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
+ "If it [Hezbollah] makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza we know how to do in Beirut," - Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister.
+ "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember" - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (that verse goes on to command King Saul in the first Book of Samuel to kill every person in Amalek, a rival nation to ancient Israel)
That said, some of the statements there are appalling, and I detest many of these politicians and condemn these statements. Some of the statements were widely panned, btw. Luckily, the worst of these politicians aren't the ones actually calling the shots (except Netanyahu).
Lastly, and most importantly - these lists have gone around many times, and they are bad, but they are also wartime propoganda. I find it far more relevant to see these statements in a broader context - the vast majority of statements that most of these politicans have made are explicitly against this idea.
That doesn't make these statements less heinous, but if politicians are saying 99 statements along the lines of "we only target terrorists and are doing our best to protect civilians", and 1 time out of 100 say the opposite, it's the 1 statement that makes the rounds for months, without any reference to the fact that it might be retracted, and/or 99% of the time the statements go the other way.
You can choose to insist on only believing the bad statements, because those "show what they really think" or something, but that's again dragging your personal view of Israel into it.
The IDF left premature babies to rot after forcing doctors away at gunpoint.
No one in the Israeli government seems to have felt bad about that.
The IDF, with the full backing of the Israeli and US governments, are murdering thousands and thousands of children, then saying things like "well you can't trust Hamas' numbers".
They're targeting journalists and poets. They're targeting historic buildings. They're targeting refugee camps and humanitarian corridors. More UN workers have been murdered than in any other conflict, ever.
That's the context I interpret the above statements in, and I don't know how those facts can be looked over.
At the end of the day, fight from civvy areas, get civvy areas demolished. That's the nature of the beast.
If you establish HQ in a building, that's now an acceptable target. The alternative is that civilian areas are an invulnerability shield that lets you conduct whatever operations you want.
And this is Israel holding back. They have the option to level all of Gaza, they don't. They do roof knocks, conduct evacuations. And they didn't break the ceasefire conditions either.
Everything you said in your comment has been debunked. IDF claimed that Hamas had HQ in Al Shifa hospital, and all they found as proof was a calendar, and they stopped saying there was a HQ. They then moved onto another hospital claiming that was the correct HQ, then that turned out to not be true as well.
Regarding ceasefire, Israel has broken a total of 17 ceasefires in the past. Ranging from assassinations to straight up bombing civilians during ceasefire period.
I don't understand your reasoning with "they do roof knocks, and tell people to evacuate, so it's all good when civilian areas get demolished and children die, that's war!"
Israel has done nothing but lie since the beginning of this genocide.
This is all happening alongside the blatant terrorism happening in the West Bank with the settlers. You can't seriously defend a nation when the leader is openly saying "wipe them all out - all of them."
> Everything you said in your comment has been debunked
I'm sorry, if you seriously believe that - you are just factually wrong.
I urge you - if you're serious - try to view real journalistic accounts of what is going on. They're not all favorable to Israel, but at least they aren't going to completely misinform you about what's going on. Just as an example:
> IDF claimed that Hamas had HQ in Al Shifa hospital, and all they found as proof was a calendar, and they stopped saying there was a HQ.
This is completely false. They didn't "only find a calendar" and they didn't "stop saying there was an HQ there". There have been multiple videos showing ammunition recovered in the hospital, showing the undergroung tunnel network under the hospital, there was even a video of Hamas militants dragging in hostages into the hospital.
You've posted over 50 comments in this thread and some of them are crossing too far into battle, which is the spirit we asked everyone not to comment in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662). I realize that you have extremely legitimate reasons for feeling the way you do, but even so, I need to ask you to abide by that request. The same goes for the users who are arguing with you and I am going to post the same thing to some of them.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
I am in Israel at the moment, and the sheer amount of racism and prejudice I've seen towards the Palestinians is unlike anything I've seen or read before. I am not surprised they are resisting the apartheid state. If I was a little Palestinian child witnessing this atrocity, I would also be resisting in whatever "group" I could be apart of. Calling this terrorism is unjustified in my opinion.
I think Israel has to ask itself why there is such a large militant force on its borders, embedded in the civilian population. Why the population support it and why it is hell bent on destroying Israel. Why for example does this problem not occur for other nations? Could Israel be responsible in some way for the situation it is in? The alternative might lie some way from addressing that.
> why there is such a large militant force on its borders
Look further back in history to the founding of Israel. None of what you imply Israel is responsible for was a thing back then and yet all their neighbours banded together to destroy it. Most of those neighbours eventually lost interest, and now it‘s pretty much only Hamas and Hezbollah. Why? Because they get weapons and money from Iran, which has made it their goal to destroy Israel. Most Gazans just want to live in peace and prosperity. Without Iranian support, Hamas would be gone, attacks on Israel would mostly stop and everyone could finally look toward a future. The Saudis were finally going to reconcile with Israel which would have been a step in that direction, but Iran is making sure we stay stuck in this perpetual war, as they have every interest to.
I have no love for Islam (nor hatred) but Jews have always been considered a protected class under Islamic law. Which I mention to bring up the point that if we had an organic Jewish state that arose naturally (i.e. via voluntary accumulation of land via purchases, etc, as opposed to theft which is how the state of Israel was formed), I see no reason why they couldn't maintain healthy relations with the surrounding states.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago. In my view it's basically a direct result of Israeli & Western foreign policy. It's really hard to take land from people and in some cases commit literal massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) and not end up with a significant portion of the affected population turning to terrorism.
> I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago.
That is incredibly untrue. The roots of this conflict don't go back to 1948 or 1967. They go back to 1918 when the Ottoman empire fell. Prior to that jews and arabs lived in relative peace in the same area-- until the allies overthrew the Ottomans leaving a power vaccuum and uncertainty about the future, which lead to frequent civil violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots
What happened in 1948 to trigger all its famous events? The British finally withdrew from the area they called Mandatory Palestine and left the inhabitants to figure it out for themselves. But by then both sides had a lot of distrust for each other from decades of tension. And the British knew they were living a shitshow behind since dealing with said shitshow as precisely what they had bored of.
> On 7 and 8 March [1920], demonstrations took place in all cities of Palestine, shops were closed and many Jews were attacked. Attackers carried slogans such as "Death to Jews" or "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs!"
It is really important to note that the roots of this conflict are over 100 years old, and the reason it didn't exist before is there was a authoritarian empire operating the area keeping the peace and keeping self determination totally off the table for everyone but the Ottoman's Turks.
Islamic terrorism has roots in Arab nationalism that has risen after collapse of Ottoman Empire. Sure, you can see the fall of Ottoman Empire as a result of Western foreign policy, but even late Ottoman Empire was not such a peaceful place, and committed several well-described genocides.
Since then every country in Middle East existed in one of two modes:
Please don't cross into posting battle comments in this thread. I've explained at the top of the thread, and in many other comments, why we're trying to avoid that and what we're going for here.
I gather that you don't agree—and that's ok—but I still need to treat your comments the same way that I'm treating everyone else's.
Please don't cross into posting battle comments in this thread. I've explained at the top of the thread, and in many other comments, why we're trying to avoid that and what we're going for here.
It is important context as the person I was responding to is insinuating that this was just a civilian scholar, which in verifiably false by reading his own tweets.
EDIT: I just saw the same remark towards the comment I responded to, fair enough
I think an honest answer would be to end occupation and oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. Any occupying force has an interest to silence and stop indigenous people from claiming their land rights.
For example, Gaza had been described as an open air prison for almost 2 decades because its borders, imports, sea usage, had all been controlled by Israel. This is not what we call “sovereign rule”. The West Bank has been checkered with military checkpoints and illegal settlements, contravening international agreements.
When people are driven to desperation, and their lives are made miserable because the occupying forces want to remove them, they do not have many options.
I think it is quite adequate to compare Gaza to the situation in for example, the Warsaw Ghetto in WW2, when an uprising was quashed by occupying German forces. This Gaza is a heavily urban area with vast majority of civilians, it cannot be compared to two armies fighting on a battlefield.
As a Jew, I have quite a few qualms with the comparison to Warsaw. I'm not denying the suffering in Gaza in any way, but it's far fetched to put this on the same grounds as Warsaw, in which an estimated 300-400k Jews were murdered, and which was just one of an industrial system of mass murder.
I agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, no argument there. But there are solid reasons why the border between Israel and Gaza has been closed (putting aside the fact that we're not obligated to open our borders, especially when the other side isn't exactly friendly). Note that they also have a border with Egypt, how come that's pretty much closed as well? (I'll give you a hint - Gaza is ruled by what is basically a fanatic death cult, and Eygpt wants nothing to do with it).
Your proposed solution is "end occupation and oppression". I'll ignore the one-sided phrasing and just say we've tried that with the Oslo accords, the disengagement from Gaza, and numerous negotiations, all leading to this point in time. So again, what would you do?
1, this is a human issue above all. One does not have to be Jewish or non-Jewish to recognize the extreme human toll being exacted on Gaza. When I see bombs collapse buildings of innocent residents, hospitals invaded with entire ICU units dying, mass starvation due to a blockade, and a death toll with over 40% being children; I think all of this warrants comparisons with industrial mass murder. Just because it is being termed “self-defense” or a “war” does not make it any less blameworthy. Let’s look at the real human loss here: it’s mostly innocent people in an urban area being killed, where a large percentage of the population is children.
2, the terming of hamas as a “fanatic death cult” appears quite an extreme label. Hamas is more comparable to a political party with political, social, and military wings. In fact, it’s quite clear that Hamas’s brands itself as part of the resistance against occupation; and the motives for recent attacks lie in the Israeli aggression committed against Palestinians in the West Bank this summer and seeking to release Palestinian prisoners, many who were children, women, and held without formal charges. Even comparing how many hostages who have been released talked about how they were treated by Hamas, with the way Palestinian prisoners were treated by Israeli captors, shows that Hamas is not merely a “fanatic death cult”, given they treated prisoners with a degree of humanity they didn’t need to.
It’s also unclear that removing Hamas will fix the situation; after all, before Hamas, the PLO was labeled terrorists and dealt with brutally. In a resistance situation, the occupying force will typically seek to discredit and derail any process that threatens its control.
3, a desire to end occupation must be one that can be accepted by the occupied people. None of the peace process deals appeared to be honest efforts from the Israeli camp because the ultimate end goal of the occupying force has been to take control of “greater Israel” without the people who are living there.
I would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations. Because it is clear that a two-state solution has been dead for quite a while, given the occupying force has no intentions to end its theft of land in the West Bank.
> would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations.
I second this. South Africa managed to end apartheid without the need to split in a white-people country and a black-people country. The same can be done in Israel too.
>South Africa managed to end apartheid without the need to split in a white-people country and a black-people country. The same can be done in Israel too.
And decades later, South Africa is probably one of the most dangerous countries to live in, where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common and people who have any kind of money live in gated compounds with heavy security. South Africa doesn't look too much like a success story to me, and certainly doesn't look like it's completely eliminated a form of apartheid, it's just replaced apartheid enforced by the national government with an apartheid at the local levels.
South Africa's inequality and resultant crime can't be blamed on a one-state solution. The peaceful transition from Apartheid to an inclusive democracy absolutely was a success story in terms of overall wellbeing.
The remaining inequality (especially along racial lines), government corruption, and violent crime are terrible problems, yes, but pale in comparison to the dehumanising codified violence of Apartheid.
Are you seriously proposing that a two-state solution would have served the people of South Africa as a whole better in the long run? I think the resultant inequality would have been far worse. Do you have another proposal?
(Edit to point out that I'm not implying that what worked for South Africa can or can't work for Israel. This comment is about South Africa.)
(As an aside) I know this community prefers not to focus on weak arguments and avoid flame wars (no pun intended), but I have to point out blatant fear mongering:
> where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common
I wouldn't repeat this as fact. The device referenced was a short-lived gimmick from 1998, four years after South Africa's first democratic election. It is in no way a reflection of reality.
Yes, carjackings are a problem in South Africa, but repeating the flamethrower story reads like FUD.
>Are you seriously proposing that a two-state solution would have served the people of South Africa as a whole better in the long run?
I'm not proposing anything; I'm just pointing out that South Africa doesn't look like some kind of success story to me, but maybe to locals it is if it's genuinely better than what came before.
Fair enough. I can imagine how South Africa looks from the outside, but our experience does not match all the doom and gloom. I'd encourage anyone to visit - there is absolutely no risk of getting fried by someone's car flamethrower, at least.
1. You've made the comparison between a (if we're being honest here), in the grand scale of things, rather insignificant military conflict between two parties, and industrial scale genocide. So I find the framing problematic. I would like this war to end just as much as you (probably more since I actually have something to lose here). But I don't see an alternative as long as Hamas is in power.
2. OK, let's agree to disagree.
3. I think a more accurate description would be that hardliners on both sides torpedoed it at various points in time. But sure, occupation.
So your solution for two groups of people who can't seem to stop killing each other is to put them together under one state? Sorry, but I think I'll politely pass :)
(And continue to hope for a peaceful, two state solution)
I wouldn't call forcibly displacing 2.3M citizens an insignificant conflict, in the face of 55 Hamas commanders that been claimed to have been killed vs 23K+ citizens, it is more similar than not, especially when one side has little military capability vs one of the strongest militaries in the world.
As to a one-state solution, given that this is what worked in Northern Ireland and in Spain, as well as South Africa, it does seem reasonable.
As with Germany, perhaps allocating some spending to aiding a populace rather than fostering a new generation of vendetta by bombing them, would bring the two sides together? People who have a better QOL are less likely to be violent.
Civillians and those who do not want to take part in the fighting have been allowed to move south for their own safety while the IDF deals with the numerous underground tunnels from which Hamas operates. This is not an ethnic cleansing (though easy to portray it as one), and if they're not allowed to go back when this is over then I'm willing to put down my Israeli passport and call it quits (I will cerainly vote against any politician who makes such a suggestion).
The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd. Not to mention the fact that Hamas's ministry of health counts all deaths as civillians, while in truth a lot were probably combatants, and this is then treated as gospel by the international community. This is a major source of frustration among Israelis, and in my opinion an obstacle to having an honest discussion around this.
Regarding a one state solution - up to those living here. Currently, it doesn't seem to be a realistic solution, will probably be rejected by the majority, and will not end the fighting anyway.
Finally, regarding aid, Hamas received tons of money. It just chose to use it for military purposes instead of bettering the lives of their people. The tunnels alone cost an estimated 150$ million (or 200-300$ per meter). We can only imagine how much better life in Gaza would have been if this was spent otherwise.
>>>The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd.
We are talking about the displacement of 2.3m people, so rather more. As to being allowed to go back- to what? Schools and hospitals have been demolished, there's no justification for that. Clear the building and move on, I'm struggling to understand why you would destroy a school etc.
The conclusion you might come to is that with nothing left there, Palestinians 'should move into the Sinai' aka displacement.
To add to this, denying access to medical supplies is not humane (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/5/israel-and-who-in-o... This is the WHO complaining here) and appears to be encouraging diseases to spread, killing more of the population.
As you have implied, this conflict extends well back before Oct, we could look at several incidents which have been ignored such as the 2018 Gaza border peaceful protests where Palestinians were massacred (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...) With incidents like that, denying access to basic human rights like water and electricity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...), this exacerbates the problems there massively. These are things which can be fixed from the Israeli side why aren't they?
You may well doubt the veracity of statements from Israel on an endgame plan. I would suggest, if you live there, talk to Palestinians in the West Bank, to appreciate the full extent of the impact Israeli policy (https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/22/23972908/pales... and illegal settlement in the West Bank) is having.
I appreciate your principled stance on the conflict, but if the time comes for you to hand in your passport, it will be too late by then.
You are not arguing honestly by claiming it's 55 "commanders" vs [inflated number] civilians.
It's very likely the 2:1 ratio of civilian:Hamas is correct given the intense ground battle and that the 17-19K death toll clearly is includes thousands of Hamas fighters. The ratio of civilian deaths for similar urban wars is much worse.
Ok, that's fair to argue over the figures. The point I was making was that displacing the entire Gazan population is not insignificant, and more indicative of ethnic cleansing than a small conflict. As to the other points about fostering integration rather than segregation, those go here unanswered as they are valid.
>[Shlomo Brom] retired from the Israel Defense Forces, where he held the position of director of strategic planning in the general staff, in 1998. He was also the deputy national security advisor, 2000–2001.
And here's an interview with Daniel Levy, one of the Oslo Accords Israeli negotiators, sharing his views about that process and the Gaza withdrawal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a6O-ZeW5zQ
Gaza has border with Egypt not controlled by Israel. In fact, ~150k people left Gaza in 2022, and numbers from 2023 are of similar scale [1]. I wouldn't call it a prison
The Rafah crossing is effectively controlled by Israel as well. Egypt gets ~$1.5B/yr in defense aid from the US ever since the six day war in exchange for playing nice with Israel. That has been interpreted by Egypt to mean including Israel in decisions regrading the Rafah crossing and enforcing the Israeli blockade there.
I'm sure you're aware of the indefinite blockade? And what Hamas did before that? etc. Let's not have another debate that brings out the facts piecemeal; it's polarizing, for one thing, and it's also misleading to bring them out in isolation. Many following the issue know them by now.
The internationally recognized State of Palestine is made up of two disjoint territories: Gaza and the West Bank. Israel gave peace a chance and left Gaza in 2005. The Palestinians immediately turned Gaza into a forward base and started attacking Israel. Israel only started the "blockade" (inspecting imports into Gaza) in 2007.
This statement is very uninformed. Isreal left Gaza very logn time ago. They had an election and Hamas came to power, and they never hold an election after. There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza (Unlike Westbank where there are serious disputes). The main problem is that Hamas and its supporter Iran consistentnly in word and in practice declared that want to wipe out and destroy Isreal. It is not about some land disupte. They want the whole Isreal gone. Now, the question is would it be wise to let this group of people with clear intention to completely destroy Israel have open borders? They make missles even without open borders.
If you want to be really honest here. The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period. As far as they don't, I see this war very well justified similar to the War with Japanese Empire or Nazi Germany.
> They had an election and Hamas came to power, and they never hold an election after.
Israel has obstructed agreements between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza on all-Palestine elections on several occasions since then (the fact that some people who would be voters in such elections live in occupied territory outside of what Israel claims as Israel but which is currently administered by Israel, among other factors, gives Israel the power to do this.)
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza
Yes, there is. Or, rather, there is no dispute at all that the kill zone of officially 100m and in practice up to 1500m that has been enforced by Israel since it supposed "disengagement" on the Gaza side of the security fence is Gaza, and not Israel, and that Israel is exercising control of that swath of Gaza territory, against the wishes and interests (and lives) of the people living in Gaza.
> The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period.
Out of Israel, Fatah (the governing party of the PA centered in the West Bank), and Hamas, the only one that hasn't accepted the 1967 borders of Israel, with presently-occupied territories (plus Gaza, for those who accept Israel's claim that it is not presently occupied) outside of those borders as a Palestinian State is Israel.
Israeli rhetoric about other people needing to accept their right to exist is exactly backwards.
Israel left Gaza, and uprooted its own citizens, in an attempt to follow the 1990s model of gradually letting Palestinians have self determination and seeing if it lead to a corresponding reduction in attacks and planning of Israeli destruction. It proved a disastrous attempt, as Hamas (and Fatah who at that time still committed numerous terrorist attacks too) and lead many Israelis to double down on the belief that Palestinians would never give up on genocide against Israel.
The 100m "kill zone" has been proved necessary beyond doubt now. But if your claim is that total military and settler withdrawal besides 100m near the border for security means that Gaza was still occupied and its people justified in using terrorism, then it just shows the extremes that pro Palestinians will go to justify atrocities and explains why Israelis are tired of giving their implacable enemies the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, but this adds nothing to the discussion. Yes, they were settlers (I don't think anyone in this sub-thread argued otherwise). Yes, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. And yet the Israeli government uprooted them at great pain for all involved (after encouraging them to settle there in the first place). Some interpret this as some grand political manuever intended to divide the Palestinians and make a diplomatic solution impossible. This is an odd assertion in my opinion since how could anyone have foreseen that Hamas would be voted into power and spiral us into more than a decade of war? I for one believe it was a gesture of good will (probably brought about by external pressure considering it was Ariel Sharon who led it, originally a strong pro-settlments politician), and an experiment to see what would happen if Israel returned land without an official agreement as all attempts at negotiations have failed at that point in time. The fact that this did not work has a lot to do with the choices made collectively by Palestinians at least as much as those made by Israelis. To say otherwise ignores their agency and freewill in these events.
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza
Of course there's a land dispute! Something like 70% of Gazans are direct descendants of refugees, or refugees themselves, of the original 1948 Nakba, which was literally when the Palestinians were violently forced out of their homes and driven into perpetual refugee status. Now those that live in Gaza, even before October 7, live under a perpetual blockade which quite literally restricts the calories entering the region, along with every other necessary resource (gas, steel, etc).
How could one, knowing that context, characterize it as "not a land dispute"? Really what you mean is that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza right now. Which is true but besides the point, and also ignores that there quite literally were settlements, but Israel forced the zionist* settlers out when they withdrew their physical occupation of Gaza all those years ago (replacing the physical occupation with the blockades, border restrictions, policies of shooting anyone approaching the border wall with sniper rifles, etc)
* I know this term is loaded with a lot of baggage, in part because many seem to think it's a dogwhistle for "the jews", but it's the most accurate descriptor for the philosophy motivating these settlers. Settling the west bank is wrong, but settling gaza is next-level crazy. You have to be extremely ideologically possessed to want to establish an Israeli settlement there because it sure as hell isn't a nice place to live.
Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions. Some are for a two state solution (center-left), some for a one state solution in the form of "greater israel" (hard right, fringe elements if you ask me), and others that honestly just don't give it much thought. Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.
> Hamas, on the other hand, is quite ideological about its stance with regards to the destruction of Israel.
> Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions.
That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.
However as far as I can tell the settlements in the West Bank have grown through every government since the occupation - something which fundamentally undermines any moves towards a resolution.
Any attempt at peace has poor prospects if a significant part of civil society and army is dead set on colonisation.
Any yes, I'm aware of the complexities of Israeli politics and society.
Before Netanyahu there were at least four prime ministers - Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin - who've made honest attempts at peace. Not to mention Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza (at a tremendous political cost). You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.
> Ariel Sharon who has, despite being a hard right-winger, lead the disengagement from Gaza
This was not an attempt to further the peace process. It was motivated by the expense and difficulty of a military occupation of a densely populated urban area.
> You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.
Please, no need for that. I'm aware of Hamas' efforts to counter any moves towards peace. And of the effects of the suicide bombing campaign.
Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.
> Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.
The same can be said of the terror attacks. I strongly agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and apologize if my comment came off as aggressive. But you have to realize that this is a deadlock. No Israeli leader can stop the settlements as long as there are terror attacks, and no Palestinian leader can stop the terror attacks as long as there are settlements. That is our tragedy I suppose.
What you're apparently referring to is slight change in Hamas charter in 1997.
In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights"
i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel.
This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders.
They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.
Should they act completely peacefully while Israel maintains settlements and themselves don't honor the agreed upon 1967 borders? Why is it wrong for one side to behave violently but not the other?
I don't condone those Israeli policies, but I don't think terrorist attacks are a productive way to incite peaceful reform. There's no fair solution when one side is much more powerful and cruel with that power, but responding with violence sure doesn't convince people to shake hands.
Israel may have left but they have had a blockade since then, not just on their border but sea and air as well. UN considers it to be occupied territory, Israel controls food and water. Human rights organisations calls it an open air prison. Doesn't sound like a situation that would be fruitful for peace?
Hamas was elected as Bush pushed for elections too early as he wanted to solve the situation before his term ended, PA was unpopular due to corruption. When Hamas won the US pushed PA to do a coup which failed, this caused Hamas to take over Gaza completely and push out PA and stopping future elections.
Hamas is certainly the main problem now, but the situation was caused by typical US fuckery, Netanyahu supporting Hamas didn't help either. Others big problems are the apartheid state of Israel and their systematic stealing of land in the West Bank. If what they have in the West Bank is the kind peace that Israel wants then I can see why people are resisting them.
Israel supplies only a small percentage of Gaza water.
Israel left in 2005, the "blockade" (which ignores the third border with Egypt) started in 2007 after Hamas seized control and Israel found itself with an enemy worse than Fatah despite it's largest since the Sinai withdrawal to exchange land for peace.
Natanyahu "supporting" Hamas was a policy of containment (coupled with recent pre-Oct-7 increase in work permits to Israel amogst other overtures) and which led to the October 7th. Israelis think a ceasefire would result in resumption of containment and eventually another October 7th so no go.
Gaza requires fuel to pump water, who controls access to fuel?
While Egypt physically controls the border Israel decides what and who can move through it.
Nethanyahu supports Hamas (see money transports most recently, but they've done it for decades) to divide and conquer Palestine between Hamas and PA. And a good Boogeyman is always good for staying in power, though he is likely finished.
Seeing what happened on 7th of October one can understand why IDF is nervous about people getting close (500m is the official buffer zone as I understand) to the fence. Not implying that competition in number of knees shot is justified.
> Seeing what happened on 7th of October one can understand why IDF is nervous about people getting close (500m is the official buffer zone as I understand) to the fence.
The Israel-declared buffer zone is 100m or total exclusion, and 300m where only farmers may enter and only by foot. In practice the murder risk area (during normal times, not during publicized invasions, where the murder risk area is more universal) is 1000-1500m.
This is, of course, inside Gaza; nothing prohibits Israel from backing its border installations off a safe distance from the border and having a murder zone in Israel instead, which would at least be superficially consistent with its pretense not to occupy or exert any control within Gaza between its periodic invasions.
> nothing prohibits Israel from backing its border installations off a safe distance from the border
I don't get how it can work. So they make the exclusion zone outside of the fence, not inside. Then they would need to make another fence around this exclusion zone. Then peaceful protesters destroy the old fence, and we are back to square 0.
> Then peaceful protesters destroy the old fence, and we are back to square 0.
Shooting people who cross a border without permission, while also not
optimal in the case of peaceful protestors, is quite different than shooting peaceful protestors on the foreign side of your border in a territory you assert is not occupied and which further claim you have disenaged from and are not exerting control over.
Israel limiting its arbitrary murder zone to Israel proper would, while still arguably acting immorally, be at least acting consistently with its claim to have disengaged from and ended its occupation of Gaza. Baby steps.
The common idea of how borders work relies on the fact that borders are mutually recognized, and authorities on both side of the border collaborate to keep the border secure. This way you can maintain the exclusion zone in no man's land.
Border between Gaza Strip and Israel on the other hand is not even officially delineated AFAIK, it just de facto exists where the barrier is. So if you make a new barrier 500 meters away, and let the old one be slowly destroyed - as Hamas is not interested in maintaining it - it doesn't change anything, except the de facto border is now 500 away from the old place.
This is exactly why the whole thing is so suspicious
They have cameras everywhere, including automated guns, a 100m buffer zone, and they didn’t see what was going on?
They didn’t see the breach, the hundreds of Hamas fighters crossing over? And they didn’t react for hours? And Netanyahu says they will only answer about Israel’s intelligence failure “after the war”?
The automated security provided a false sense of security but it turned out to be very vulnerable to a multi-pronged and carefully timed attack on a Jewish holiday. With careful planning, and a pretence of not being interested in attacking (and even providing Israel with intelligence on PIJ commanders for assassination in recent times, working with Israel who provided increased work permits for Gazans to work in Israel recently), Hamas pulled the wool over Israel's eyes
Shooting nonviolent protestors and then (as many do) saying why don't they choose nonviolence is an impossible trap to get out of. They have no options.
My point is it's not non-violent, as the point of the "protest" was threatening the same violence as happened on 7th of October - and, as it was organized by Hamas, potentially distracting IDF in order to commit actual violence.
The hypothetical I'm referring to doesn't require protests.
1. Gaza declares "we're done trying to kill you guys" and means it.
2. A few quite months go by
3. Embargo and restriction start slowly lifting
4. More quiet months, life in Gaza improves
5. Repeat steps 3-4 for a few years.
6. Gaza is free, independent and thriving.
> For example, Gaza had been described as an open air prison for almost 2 decades because its borders, imports, sea usage, had all been controlled by Israel.
Those restrictions are in place for a reason, which Hamas has confirmed on October 7th. And, what suffering does this cause exactly? Gaza had an HDI larger than that of many countries not at war, and had areas described as "wealthy".
Any close reading of this conflicts shows that it is an ideological conflict. Hamas and their supporters in Gaza actually prefer that Gaza becomes a hellhole, to rally allies to their side. Do you really think they want a peaceful and prosperous Gaza? No, they want to blow up the conflict, to energize it, to force a reckoning, with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.
Under such circumstances, what should Israel do? Pack up their bags and leave?
I don't really feel like clearing up all the half-truths or outright lies here, but I wanted to just call out one:
> with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.
The "from the river to the sea" is the language in the Likud charter, the party ruling Israel and dropping thousands of 2-ton bombs on Gaza right now. The popular chant "from the river to the sea palestine will be free" is a direct response to that. I'm unaware of Hamas' charter using the "from the river to the sea" language, although I'm open for correction here because I have not read the entire charter.
Are you claiming ignorance of the fact that the Hamas charter originally called for the liquidation of Israel? This is common knowledge. Granted, they have revised it recently to tone down the genocidal language, but I don't think anybody should be deceived about what their intentions are.
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Hamas is certainly a bad actor. I'm of the opinion that while Israel is somewhat better, it still did some bad things and is doing bad things that should be addressed. I wouldn't describe the Israeli government as a "defender" and leave it at that.
How? There are generations born in Israel, people who have nothing to do with occupation, they were born into this situation same like Palestinians. Why would they leave?
My father is Belorussian jew, mother Dagestanian Ukrainian, I was born in Russia. I'm Israely. Where exactly do you want me to pack up my bags and leave? Because I WILL fight you if you'll try to deport me to Russia...
I consider calls "to end the occupation" a sign of lack of understanding of the other side, we have nowhere to go.
Israel controls Gaza's borders. Israel controls the sea. Israel controls Gaza's airspace. Israel controls the products entering and exiting Gaza. Israel controls even more areas than this. The occupation is ongoing. And it needs to end.
I do not care if you continue your live in Russia or Israel...
when apartheid south africa ended, the people remained. populations were not mass deported as you're suggesting must happen to end occupation - simply ahistorical. why is that more farfetched to you than mass deportations (to, as you say, where?)
btw, i used "they" to refer to the same "they" that you wrote. don't insinuate anything with scare quotes.
By "Pack up their bags and leave" I meant, do Israelis have to vacate their country altogether as a condition of peace?
I understand Israel left Gaza in 2005, so I'm not sure what occupation is being referred to here. If you mean the blockade, don't you think Hamas laying down arms and renouncing violence would be a good first step towards convincing the Israelis to lift the blockade?
> I understand Israel left Gaza in 2005, so I'm not sure what occupation is being referred to here.
Israel controls Gaza's borders. Israel controls the sea. Israel controls Gaza's airspace. Israel controls the products entering and exiting Gaza. Israel controls even more areas than this. The occupation is ongoing.
> [Don't] you think Hamas laying down arms and renouncing violence would be a good first step towards convincing the Israelis to lift the blockade?
People living under occupation have a right to armed resistance under international law. Israel has no right to continue its occupation.
You seem to be arguing from a bizarre perspective that Israel is the defender here. In reality, Israel is the aggressor, and Palestine is the state that has been under occupation and illegal blockade for decades. October 7th was an (illegal, abhorrent and criminal!) act of retaliation against previous Israeli aggressions, not an unprovoked attack. If Ukraine were to bomb a Russian city during the current war, no one would views it as legitimate for Russia to bomb a Ukrainian city back: Russia started the whole conflict and is expected to bear the consequences, until such a time as it stops the occupation.
In general, the overall solution would be for Israel to allow Palestine to be an independent state, recognized in the UN, with full control of its own borders. It is fully within its rights to keep its border with Gaza closed, of course, but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea. There is also a good argument to be made for paying reparations to Palestine for the occupied territories and for the entire illegal blockade duration - though that is ultimately secondary. The thornier question is of course how to connect Gaza to the West Bank.
> You seem to be arguing from a bizarre perspective
This sort of swipe is against the spirit of the HN guidelines and particularly the spirit we asked commenters in this thread to keep. Please don't do this.
> If Ukraine were to bomb a Russian city during the current war, no one would views it as legitimate for Russia to bomb a Ukrainian city back
If Kyiv went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a rave, their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat.
Had Hamas hit military installations (demonstrating Israeli impotency) and taken hostages, but treated them well (taking the moral high ground as images of Nonna being served tea and falafel are juxtaposed with those of aerial bombardment), our conversation right now would be very different.
You're broadly right. One component of the solution must be an independent Gaza (if not Palestinian state). Another has to be reparations for the Nakba. Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K. and possibly French. (Reparations for the blockade are needlessly divisive. Israel can always argue, legitimately, I believe, that it was Palestine's Arab allies who repeatedly attacked it first.)
> If Ukraine went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a group of kids partying, I'm pretty sure their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia, in some sense, would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat.
That is an interesting thought experiment in itself. I'd like to believe you are right, but then I remember that there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated. There was also little interest to determine if Ukraine may have been behind the destruction of the dam that killed many innocent civilians. So, I'm not entirely sure how European and US opinion would have oriented.
> Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K.--they are the ones who took the land and gave it to another
That is a good point, and I'm pretty sure other European states would have quite a bit to attone for to help set this right.
> there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated
Massive difference between targeted killing and broad slaughter. To put this on the other shoe, it's why we were never going to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan or Vietnam.
Yes, I didn't mean to equivocate. Unquestionably what Hamas did was much, much worse. Still, logically speaking, if we can excuse murdering one innocent civilian, we might have excused murdering a thousand as well.
There's a difference between deliberate targeting of civilians and collateral damage. The latter is acceptable, as the alternative is literally impossible.
> Had Hamas hit military installations (demonstrating Israeli impotency) and taken hostages, but treated them well (taking the moral high ground as images of Nonna being served tea and falafel are juxtaposed with those of aerial bombardment), our conversation right now would be very different.
Many would argue that this is EXACTLY what Hamas has done, no more, no less.
The fog of war is well named. There hasn't really been any VERIFIED evidence presented to independent media showing that Hamas deliberately killed civilians.
On the other hand, lots of evidence, from Israeli sources themselves, of zero babies murdered, zero rapes, Israeli tanks shelling Israeli civilians and Israeli helicopters shooting at Israeli civilians with hellfire missiles.
This is very much absurd. It is very clear that Hamas associated terrorists/militants killed many Israeli civilians on October 7th, and abducted some 100 civilian hostages. Abducting civilian hostages is a war crime just as much as killing civilians.
Even the sources you cite show the Hamas militants attacking entirely civilian infrastructure. Even if it is true that some of the Israeli victims were killed by the IDF inside Israel, it is still in response to Hamas attacks on a kibbutz, festival etc. - NOT military installations.
Hamas did not target the festival. It has since transpired that they did not even know that such a festival was taking place. They were making their way along a road, from one military base they had smoked, to the next one, and ran smack into it.
Cue pandemonium, and wild crossfire.
We DO have actual gun footage camera of Israeli Apache helicopters firing indiscriminately. Plus we have the testimony of those helicopter pilots, as reported by Haaretz, that they had no clue who was who, and they just emptied their weapon stores on anything that moved, and kept going back to base to reload and repeat.
ALL of the above is taken VERBATIM from Israeli sources, reported by the Israeli media.
You haven't looked at any of it. Just blindly repeating the same tired old narrative, long after it has been debunked.
After all, why is Israel BURYING all the forensic evidence (burned out cars, etc) in the desert? Or... you didn't know about either (widely reported even in the US)
And Hamas took hostages for the SAME reason they ALWAYS took hostages. To free the THOUSANDS of innocent Palestinian hostages languishing in Israeli dungeons. Or are you going to pretend that that's not true either?
For goodness sake, J Paul - the US State Dept official who resigned in protest gave interviews talking about EXACTLY THIS, and even shared cases that he personally was involved in where Palestinian child hostages were sexually abused/raped by their Israeli captors.
You can stick your fingers in your ears as long and as deep as you want. That's your problem. It doesn't have to be mine, or others who want to delve deeper and find out the truth.
So are you saying the numerous videos I've seen of Hamas shooting civilians dead, shooting assault rifles into homes, shooting drivers dead on the roads, beheading people, throwing grenades into shelters where women and children are cowering, etc, re all forged?
I'm saying that you haven't looked at any of the REAL reporting done, by REAL journalists, some of which I linked to above. Where they debunk much of this narrative.
While sourcing interviews on Israeli media, and the press.
Yes, there's plenty of snuff videos circulating on Israeli telegram channels. Funnily enough, they don't get circulated to reputable, independent, international press. There was one segment on the independent US Breaking Points channel (Ryan Grimm, of the Intercept), highlighting just how much fake misinformation is being spread on those very Israeli groups. Reported on TODAY!
And whenever IDF claims and videos DO get circulated to the international press, they get DEBUNKED within a day or 2. Too many to enumerate. From beheaded babies, to rapes, to bombing this hospital and that camp, to striping civilians making them pose as Hamas fighters, to hiding metal weapons in MRI rooms, to posting videos of fake Gazan doctors criticizing Hamas (later proven to be an Israeli actress, with name and film bio). And on. And on.
Every single thing I have stated, every single thing, is taken directly from reporting done by independent journalists in the West, referencing Israeli sources. You can pretend all you like - it's painfully obvious that YOU haven't taken the leap to look beyond your personal echo chamber to see what's being reported in the wider world.
And you prove that by not checking or referencing the many copious references and links to NEWS REPORTING that I (and I'm sure others) have given. You haven't tried to address any of the items I brought up (which themselves are just a small sample of a bigger body of work). Instead, you make up silly things I did not say, pretend I said them, and then exclaim fake indignation. That's possibly why you feel sick ...
If Hacker News can "tolerate" that from you, it can certainly handle my attempts at highlighting courageous journalism on here.
> but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea
This by the way is an important fact to bring up when the claim that "Israel left Gaza many years ago and the problem didn't improve". In actuality, they withdrew their occupying army but still kept up a blockade, including a literal cap to the number of calories allowed to enter the country, which I can only interpret as a population control measure. That's of course in addition to all the other stuff they kept doing, but that's probably a discussion for another day.
I'd note that the GP was careful to specifically mention Israel having withdrawn its military from Gaza which is true, so I'm not disputing the veracity of their claim on that specifically.
That is a weird tangent to take. The population size in Gaza nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching approximately 2 million (). If the sea blockade is a population control measure, it's a highly ineffective one. Did ever you stop to consider that it's, maybe, I don't know, to stop them from bringing in stuff to shoot at us?
Did the UK blockade Ireland when the IRA was routinely conducting terror attacks in Northern Ireland? Did Spain institute controls on the amount of calories that could be imported into its Basque region when the separatists there were routinely committing acts of terror?
Some behaviors are simply unacceptable - and the current blockade has been found to be illegal by the UN time and time again, or at least would have been without US vetos.
declassified documents revealed how in a 1987 meeting British officials raised the prospect of erecting a physical border along the entire frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic
The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise. You don't have Northern Ireland back to the Irish and bow to terrorism. Instead you strike hard and eventually they'll make peace.
The Gaza blockade is not about the border wall. It's about preventing any access into or out of Gaza over sea or over the Egyptian border.
The equivalent would have been to erect a border wall, then send the British navy to intercept any ship going into or out of Ireland, and signing agreements with other EU countries to ensure they enforce the same terms for air travel. This is what Israel is doing to Gaza.
> The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise
I'm Irish. That's not an accurate description. There very much was a compromise, on all sides. One that both sides in the current conflict could learn from.
Well they starved them during the potatoe famine. All this who started the tit for tat is futile.
Stable government in power is needed. Which then can reduce violence by agreements stepping back in lockstep from violence.
Pre requisite for that are stable societies not ramping up for loopdeformation showdowns.
The IRA was a terrorist group, not the official government of Ireland. During WW2 the Allies did in fact blockade Germany.
The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
> take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets
This is not true. They did dig up pipes to make rockets, but they were the pipes from Israeli settlements. Settlements that Israel destroyed so Palestinians couldn’t inhabit them
> What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
Be more at peace, feel like they matter, like the world cares about them and that they can be a part of it without having to ask for permission from Israel
If anything, the end of the blockade would probably bring more peace and stability to everyone in the region
The IRA was also not being fought by the Irish government.
Blockades are an act of war, so yes, it's not unexpected or illegal that the Allies were blockading Germany while at war. But Israel is claiming not to be at war with Palestine (or at least was before the current invasion). They in fact keep claiming that military occupation of Palestine ended 20 years ago.
The fact that Hamas can turn water pipes into rockets is somewhat irrelevant. The obvious fact is that, as long as it is impossible for Palestinians to live a prosperous life because of this occupation, some part of their population will want to retaliate. Peace in the region can't start without ending this blockade. Israel's Iron Dome can already protect from huge numbers of Palestinian rockets. It is generally the Palestinians who are defenseless in the face of Israeli attacks (as can be seen in the current invasion, as well as past protests and retaliation).
So instead of Hamas digging tunnels to protect themselves they could be digging bomb shelters? Or should they not have a duty to protect their own people. They don’t even provide education or healthcare to their own population instead they use that money to line their pockets and build pipe bombs. How many Hamas billionaires are there?
In this context the UN is simply the governing body of international law. It holds no mechanism of enforcement and is wowed to non-interference and impartiality. When the UN finds a blockade illegal it simply means that it violates the international laws it self has set. You can think of this like a supreme court ruling inside your own jurisdiction, just between states as opposed to people.
There is no bias here, just law and interpretations on these laws.
If this were the security council that would be another issue however.
The "blockade" was Israel protecting its borders once Hamas seized control. And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt.
For much of the time, Israel allowed goods through the tough restrictions on what types of materials were allowed in started once Hamas started tunneling into Israel to commit attacks.
Very recently, Israel increased significantly the number of work permits for Gazans to work in Israel in the mistaken belief that Hamas and Gazans were getting comfortable with improved economy and this would gradually lead to deradicalisation and eventual peace. The other estimated the humanity of Hamas who it turns out were actually planning barbarism.
> And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt.
The fact that Israel has an agreement with Egypt governing that border crossing and preventing imports other than as approved by Israel undermines the "its not a blockade because one border touches Egypt" argument.
In this certain case, it is. The aggressions (during this round) started on October 7th by Hamas. You can replace "defense" with "response" / "retaliation" / or "zionist agressions" if you're reading certain news sources. I will admit that the my background affected my word choice to some extent.
The history of this conflict is a lot more complex than the occupier/ occupied framing would imply. For one, there was a Jewish presence here for centuries, not to mention the ancient kingdom of Judea. But I find these discussions unconstructive usually since they seem to get into these "he hit me first" kind of arguments. I agree that a two state solution is what we should be striving for. Humans are creative, if the will was there, we would find a way to connect Gaza and the West Bank (tunnel/bridge/whatever), do some territory swaps as needed, divide Jerusalem, etc. The plans for this exist, it's the leadership that's failing (on both sides).
Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, dismantling is own Israeli settlements despite massive protests by the seller movements, and only imposing a blockade once a terrorist group took absolute control (and threw Gays and Fatah opponents off rooftops to their deaths)
Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt).
> Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt).
Gaza has sea access, but Israel doesn't allow any ship to dock into Gaza or leave Gaza - this is blockading Gaza's own sea borders, not closing Israel's. Egypt's border with Gaza is also controlled by Israel through a treaty - Egypt can't unilaterally open its border to Gaza without breaking its treaties with Israel.
> Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza,
Israel didn't disengage entirely from Gaza, it maintains a murder zone inside Gaza, and has murdered unarmed peaceful protestors in Gaza within that murder zone.
>In general, the overall solution would be for Israel to allow Palestine to be an independent state, recognized in the UN, with full control of its own borders.
What would be the solution of that independent state went to war and attacked Israel again? Would you agree at that juncture that Israel would be within its rights to destroy and conquer that state?
No, there is no allowance in international law for conquering and destroying a state. If you are attacked by a different state, you obviously have the full right to defend yourself and destroy the military installations used to attack you. You have a right to attack back and seek regime change and impose terms that ensure another attack can't happen, and even seek reparations.
But you do not have the right to attack the civilian population or to take their land. Even if you think they were for the war. The allies didn't conquer and destroy Japan or Germany. They didn't divide their territories among themselves (even the separation of Germany still left two sovereign states).
We have also learned from the end of WW1 and WW2 that investing into the old enemy state to make it happy and successful is in fact a MUCH better solution for lasting peace than pounding them into submission and trying to sap their economy. If Israel had sought a Marshall-plan like solution for Gaza after the Yom-Kippur war instead of a military occupation for the following 30 years, perhaps Hamas wouldn't have won the 2005 elections in the first place.
I think the compairison to Japan and Germany is interesting, although there are obvious differences.
Both Japan and Germany had major civil cities leveled and gave unconditional surrender in WWII, and were occupied.
Germany was stripped of its sovereignty and former statehood. It was administered by the allies for 5 years and permanently lost 25% of its territory (compared to its 1937 pre-war borders.) It took 25 years post WWII for Germany to be admitted to the UN.
Japan was Occupied and administered by US military for 7 years following the war, and parts of the Japanese home islands are still administered 70 years later. Japan Lost multiple territories it had held for more than 60 years before WWII started.
I think that what we learned from WWII and subsequent wars that you need unconditional surrender and acceptance for any real nation building to take place.
Perhaps Palestine needs their equivalent to Germany's first post-war chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who accepted that Germany lost, and was willing look forward and not back.
Is there any reason to believe that a Palestinian state with full control of its borders would not immediately begin the process of accumulating weapons to repeat Oct 7? Hamas has never affirmed Israel's right to exist.
Treaties and UN involvement could be arranged to help guarantee this.
However, what is clear is that Israel's current approach is not working to ensure its security, and that in the last few decades it has only succeeded in turning the population of Palestine ever more bitter against them. So, unless they are prepared to wipe them out entirely, what possible hope is there in continuing in this direction?
Say Hamas is successfully eliminated. Every single Hamas leader and soldier is killed or captured. Is there any reason whatsoever to imagine that people in Gaza could return to their bulldozed and bombed "homes" and feel friendly towards Israel? Or did this incursion all but guarantee that the next generation of Gazans will feel even more justified in defying Israel?
And note, the same question is true of Hamas' monstrous attack - no doubt the vast majority of those hurt by the Hamas attack will feel justified in hating and fearing Gaza and Hamas. It's just harder to ask the ones being oppressed to just bear with it in the hope their oppressor might stop.
UN has assisted Hamas in the past, there is no reason to believe it would be any different this time. The history didn't start on October 7th, what has happened on October 7th is the violence went over the threshold in which Israel would believe intent of international community and instead is handling it themselves despite the uproar.
The history before October 7th is generally that for every Israeli civilian killed by Palestinian terror attacks, there have been 2-5 Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers or police, at least in the last 20 years or so. Even the monstrous Hamas attacks from October 7th don't reverse the death toll comparison (and that's before the invasion).
So, if anything, a more accurate description is that October 7th was a boiling point where Palestine retaliated for decades of oppressive killings.
But the reality is that neither is the right framing. The October 7th attacks on innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. The following invasion and widespread murder of innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable.
A ceasefire and peace deals must be imposed to keep the situation under control. All those who have caused the death of civilians, both in Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership, should face international justice, and new leaders should be installed that are committed to a lasting peace process.
It sounds like you're advocating that some multi-national force take over the entire region and set up authoritarian governments, because with democracy, the people in both these places are going to choose violence.
It is not authoritarian to take aggressive war off the table. In a modern constitutional democracy, the people can only express their will in the bounds of the law. Killing Israeli or Palestinian civilians is obviously illegal under any constitution imaginable (including the current constitutions of Israel and Palestine). So, a fully democratic government who represents the will of its people could nevertheless be bound not to attack it's neighbor.
Also, I'm not seriously advocating for this. It's a fantasy that has no chance whatsoever of happening. But it is probably the only sort of thing that could bring a quick end to this conflict given the current parties in power.
I don't follow at all. Killing civilians in a war is not illegal under any constitution I'm aware of; only killing your own citizens is, generally. Israel already has a fully democratic government, so I'm not sure what you're proposing to do here. And while Gaza is obviously not democratic, if someone did set up a fully democratic government there, and the people voted for Hamas as their leaders again with their stated aim of attacking Israel, then nothing changes. Maybe I'm missing something in your proposal idea, but history shows that people in democratic societies can and will vote for warmongering leaders.
Your original comment said that leaders committed to peace should "be installed". That doesn't sound democratic in the least. And here you say that "it is not authoritarian to take aggressive war off the table". When you're talking about outside forces forcibly taking over these places governments and "installing" new leaders, that's the definition of authoritarianism. Israel's leaders were already democratically elected, and obviously they're not peaceniks, and if Netanyahu suddenly died of a stroke, I think it's naive to think the Israelis would now vote for peaceniks. And I think it's very unlikely that Gazans, given a new vote, would choose peaceful leaders either, though I could be wrong of course.
This is a longer version of "Israel has the right to defend itself". Maybe Israel shouldn't exist but since it does I think we can agree it has a right to defend itself since if it doesn't innocents will be harmed/killed/raped.
That said, even in war, there are long established rules of engagement in war designed to protect (as possible) non-combatants. Israel is not respecting these rules at all. And beyond the insane death toll and indiscriminate bombing, Gazans are hungry and without water and shelter.
Of course, Israel should exercise restraint, especially since it's better armed and has such sophisticated intelligence. Now it's making itself a pariah (except in the US)
> That said, even in war, there are long established rules of engagement in war designed to protect (as possible) non-combatants. Israel is not respecting these rules at all.
Israel absolutely should be respecting the rules of war. As far as I know, it is.
People often like to claim that it's not, hinting at some vague "war crimes" or claiming that Israel is targeting civilians, but there is no proof of that happening on purpose, that I'm aware.
This is complicated by Hamas deliberately using human shields and trying to get Gazans killed to make Israel look bad. It is a very complicated situation to fight in and Israel is absolutely making mistakes, but I urge you, show evidence of it actually committing war crimes in the killing of citizens.
> And beyond the insane death toll and indiscriminate bombing, Gazans are hungry and without water and shelter.
Hamas is the government responsible for Gazans. if they are hungry, it's because Hamas is failing in its duty to its citizens. They are literally stealing food from aid trucks in order to feed themselves (and probably stockpile food in tunnels) instead of feeding their own citizens.
Not to mention, they could return the hostages and surrender and spare themselves and their citizens all of this death and pain.
As for the "insane death tool" - what makes it "insane" in your mind?
Note: every death is a tragedy. Civilians dying, on either side, is tragic. Hell, even soldiers and Hamas militants dying is tragic - every death is a tragedy. I'm talking about all this analytically but the death and suffering here is horrible.
Whether Israel is proportionately attacking Gaza remains to be seen. Just because Hamas doesn't care about Gazans doesn't mean that Israel is giving them a reasonable opportunity to thrive, though. That's without mentioning the settler colonialism debacle, which is not as one-sided as some people claim but still an injustice to Palestinians.
> Just because Hamas doesn't care about Gazans doesn't mean that Israel is giving them a reasonable opportunity to thrive, though.
Yes and no. Israel definitely hasn't had clean hands these last 15 years, but on the other hand it did withdraw from Gaza and leave it to themselves to manage. They really, really could've tried to better themselves, the area, etc, and instead chose to continue pursuing violence (via electing Hamas), which led to them being blockaded etc.
Don't forget, Israel was allowing more and more Gazan citizens to enter Israel to work. There are terrible stories (I don't know for sure if these are verified though) that many Gazan workers, who worked for years in the cities surrounding Gaza, actually gave information to Hamas to help them carry out the attack.
> That's without mentioning the settler colonialism debacle, which is not as one-sided as some people claim but still an injustice to Palestinians.
Yes, there's definitely at least some merit to this.
But that's true of almost every country. All of them have complicated histories. How many countries were newly created since WW2?
Only in this one case, a group that arguably got a bad deal (and it is arguable), is still clinging to violence and the idea that they'll "return" 75 years later.
> But that's true of almost every country. All of them have complicated histories.
A) that's kind of saying colonisation is OK because other countries did it
B) the colonisation in Israel is ongoing and extreme. The West Bank is the site of continuing expropriation and settlement with the explicit aim of shunting the Palestinians into tiny enclaves and rendering any possibility of a Palestinian state impossible, and creating something strongly resembling apartheid South Africa.
See e.g. public statements by Naftali Bennett or Benjamin Netanyahu
The article nominally under discussion in this post claims that Israel is torturing Gazan civilians without cause. As far as I can tell it’s a convincing demonstration.
> Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again. Otherwise, it breaks the most basic contract between citizen and state ("I give up on violence and in turn you protect me from violence").
If violent retribution alone could ensure "this never happens again," the conflict would have ended long ago. Instead, it is over a century old.
> Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?
Israel has no good options, only terrible ones and even worse ones, but: invade Gaza on the ground, block by block, instead of indiscriminate airstrikes. Accept higher casualties among Israel's forces to protect civilians. Give civilians as much stability as possible, as long as they follow orders ("if you are peaceful, we'll ensure you have food, water, medical care, shelter; step out of line and you will never be seen again.") Meanwhile, end the settlements in the West Bank, stop sidelining Fatah, show that there is a path forward for Palestinians if they are peaceful.
> Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again.
This is often said and I’m sure often in good faith, but I always find it a bit unsettling. If by “making sure it never happens again” you mean stronger protection of the boarder going forward it’s fine of course. But if you’re referring to someone kind of offensive operation (as I assume most who say this are, since they are defending an offensive operation) I can’t see how that would be possible within the law of armed conflict. It would require sending Gaza back to the stone age and keeping it that way forever, or permanent occupation, or something like that.
As it’s not clear to me how this goal could possibly be accomplished I can’t refer to any specific international law. But the spirit of the law does not allow for the indefinite subjugation of a neighboring people, regardless of what some of them have done.
Abbas is no Lee Kuan Yew, and that comparison is already way more charitable than Abbas deserves...
Wikipedia describes Lee as such: "Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within his premiership. In the process, he forged a highly effective, anti-corrupt government and civil service. Lee eschewed populist policies in favour of long-term social and economic planning, championing civic nationalism through meritocracy[3] and multiracialism[4][5] as governing principles, making English the lingua franca[6] to integrate its immigrant society and to facilitate trade with the world, whilst mandating bilingualism in schools to preserve the students' mother tongue and ethnic identity."
That's a forward looking vision, not a backwards looking vision like the "Palestinian cause" that seems to end with restitution.
Would any politician with such a vision like Lee's even have a chance with Palestine's electorate? No idea, elections were last held in 2006...
Based on what? He's a cynical real politik kind of guy, but I doubt this is how he hoped this would play out. At the end of the day, I believe that his legacy is extremely important to him, and he probably did not want to be remembered as the one in power during one of the worse massacres against Jews since the holocaust. Not to mention that it's highly likely he'll be voted out during the next elections (TBD...)
His policy towards Hamas was one of containment and not making a decision, which is classic Netanyahu behavior. I don't know whether or not his biographies agree with this, but this is pretty much the consensus among Israelis. Again, I truly doubt that October 7th is what he was aiming for (happy to change my mind if there is evidence otherwise).
There are plenty of cases of countries being attacked by terrorists and not responding like Israel has. PKK has carried out acts of terrorism in Turkey. FARC carried out attacks in Colombia for half a century.
None of those had a massacre like Oct 7 with 1200 dead (and as a proportion of Israeli population count that makes it proportionally more devastating than 9/11 for Israel, not too mention it was also more cold blooded and barbaric in methodology).
A better example is eg Mosul which had a far higher death toll, as well as other Isis warzones.
Plus none of those threats are anything like Gaza (and indeed Jenin) which is 5 minutes drive from Israeli towns and so a far greater persistent threat.
Plus those terrorists aren't part of a pattern of repeated wars by neighbouring countries for the same cause that Israel had to endure since its founding.
> 1. It has to happen in the same time as the agression
There are still rockets flying out of Gaza into Israel.
> 2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression
The people sending those rockets are in Gaza, so to stop them, Israel has to go there.
> 3. The defense has to be proportionate
That one is regularly the most difficult point of contention in individual self-defense. Hamas essentially goes by this playbook: https://imgur.com/XX6HVrn
So, moving it back to individual self-defense (or coming to somebody's aid, which is covered by approximately the same rules): what should be done about the guy holding a loaded gun at his hostage's head while covering himself in babys?
> what should be done about the guy holding a loaded gun at his hostage's head while covering himself in babys?
It's a difficult situation, but I doubt the answer would be to shoot the guy and two babies, which is analogous to Israel's response, if you believe their claim that 1/3 of the people they've killed were Hamas.
>I doubt the answer would be to shoot the guy and two babies
not unreasonable if they are pointing the gun at you and your baby. How many children would you kill to save your child? would you just give it up to die?
Israel nuking/genociding Gaza would effectively be the end of the Zionist experiment. It would be internationally condemned, and trigger a larger war that would certainly bring in Hezb/Iran. IDF can’t win that war, and the US doesn’t want to fight it.
It’s easy to demonize your enemy and say they would commit atrocities and use that as justification to commit your own.
Israel should try harder to avoid killing civilians. But to act like they don't try at all (which you did) is objectively wrong.
Moving onto hypotheticals, international condemnations don't mean a whole lot. At any rate, I expect that Israel would win a war against Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Or perhaps that war would be indecisive, but Israel wouldn't lose.
Finally, it's very clear that Hamas actively wants to kill Israeli civilians. Israel's behavior is not beyond reproach but they aren't going through Palestinian towns and shooting old people and children.
> Finally, it's very clear that Hamas actively wants to kill Israeli civilians. Israel's behavior is not beyond reproach but they aren't going through Palestinian towns and shooting old people and children.
While I agree that Hamas has made it very clear that they are explicitly targeting Israeli civilians, which is an obvious war crime and abhorrent, I see no proof whatsoever that the Israeli military isn't doing the same. The scale of destruction and murder in the current incursion speaks for itself. Sure, they don't intend to literally murder all of Gaza's population. But it's very hard to believe that they don't intend to kill some specific number.
They have already killed more civilians in Gaza than Russia killed in the first months in Ukraine.
If Israel wanted to kill civilians, why order evacuations? Why let aid trucks in?
Israel is willing to kill a lot of civilians in order to destroy Hamas. But I've seen no evidence that Israel wants to kill civilians. Individual Israelis, sure, but as a policy? No, it would be counterproductive.
The question can be asked the other way - if they didn't want to kill civilians, why attack refugee camps? Why invade the Al Sheefa hospital? Why level entire neighborhoods?
Sure, we can't know for sure what the intentions were, what legitimate targets may have been there or not etc.
All we can say for sure is that they have killed a huge number of civilians, so it's illogical to assume that this could not have been at least part of their intention.
There has been plenty of historical and present proof including video and photo evidence, that Hamas operates from within or near civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and residential buildings.
Given that, do you deny possibility that some residential infrastructure targeted by Israel including that hospital could have been used militarily by Hamas as they have done in the past?
> Given that, do you deny possibility that some residential infrastructure targeted by Israel
In principle, no. However, the IDF has failed to provide convincing evidence in many cases, especially in the case of the Al Shifa hospital. Doubly so when their most spectacular piece of evidence - the tunnel found underneath the hospital - was casually revealed by Ehud Barak in a CNN interview to have been an old Israeli construction from the time of the military occupation (taking Christiane Amanpour aback live on air) [0].
Do I think that some of the apparently civilian infrastructure they destroyed was legitimate targets? Yes, absolutely. But given the scale of the destruction and the scantness of evidence, I do not at all believe that all of it was.
Israel built bunkers, not tunnels, and evidence of tunnels was presented.
Consider that releasing information jeopardizes its source, both in the physical sense (a person giving information will be executed), and in the intelligence sense - the source will go dead and Israel will have worse intelligence.
That's why Israel can't release information for each and every single target. For Al-Shifa, ample evidence was produced. Whether or not it is convincing is subjective, and your opinion is not more valuable than mine or the IDF's.
The only way to get an objective judgement of the legitimacy of a given attack is to have a neutral third party actively collect intelligence and present their findings, but that's not going to happen.
You realize that half of Gaza is a permanent refugee camp. Where else in the world has there been 75 years of refugee camps? These were pretty much cities before the war.
Why ask civilians to leave before bombing if they wanted to kill them all? Why ask them to move to a different location?
Do you have any clue how difficult it is when the enemy is not wearing a military uniform? Either they have to use intel (which could be wrong) or wait until they are fired upon before engaging.
Stop acting like they are purposely killing civilians when the enemy is blending right in.
> Why ask civilians to leave before bombing if they wanted to kill them all? Why ask them to move to a different location?
Obviously, to maintain plausible deniability. Note that there was nothing organized in the South where they were asking those civilians to evacuate to. And they have also bombed the southern side occasionally after evacuating all those people there.
Not to mention, they have killed plenty of obvious non-combatants, such as journalists, children, doctors and others. They have bombed hospitals under flimsy pretenses, and have leveled entire neighborhoods. By their own (certainly highly biased count) they have killed two civilians for every one enemy combatant - a huge margin.
We can also compare these nukbers to other similar wars in the region. In the Iraq War, it seems the direct civilian casualties were in the order of 200,000 people in three years - most of these killed by coalition forces, with significant chunks killed by increased criminality and by Iraqi forces. In Afghanistan, where there was an even less well defined combatant, the total civilian death count is around 200,000 people in 20 years of conflict. Israel has killed on the order of 20,000 people in less than two months - going by IDF estimates, this would be ~13, 000 civilians. Extrapolate this to 36 months or to twenty years to compare.
> Extrapolate this to 36 months or to twenty years to compare.
Extrapolating like that is a great way to achieve amazing numbers with little relation to reality: wars don't keep up the pressure throughout their duration.
For example: The latest number I've seen was 857 civilians murdered by Hamas on Oct 7. That would be 26500 dead civilians per month, but of course that number exaggerates an already horrible situation into ridiculous heights.
Calling an internationally recognized state that has given the world so many amazing people and technologies “the Zionist Experiment” is precisely the demonization that you speak of
I do not have power to police speech on hacker news, I only have an ability to critique what I found to be a very intentionally demeaning term for a Israel.
I dont think that "Zionist entity" sounds worse than "Zionist Experiment" TBH.
Ask yourself, why not simply call "Zionist Entity" or "Zionist Experiment" Israel?
Its simple - the word "Zionist" has been hijacked by anti-Israel movement to mean "Jewish".
To the rest of us, modern-day Zionism means "Israel has the right to exist"
1.
How many though and is it enough to justify the response. Why not go after those targets exactly. I'm sure they can tell exactly where the rockets are being fired from
2.
Maybe, Netanyahu not sending Hamas hundreds of millions of dollars to begin with would have been better
3.
The "human shields" argument got old the moment it came out that half the buildings in Gaza were destroyed, more homes than Hamas fighters
There's no moral high ground here unless you can find a way to dehumanize Palestinians. And that's unacceptable.
> However supportive of Israel one may be and how repulsed one should be by Hamas, I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself.
I’ve felt that as well, and I would add that even if you feel every action is justified I am skeptical that it’s not counterproductive. Each civilian killed by mistake has family, friends, and neighbors who might be inclined to avenge them and it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t end up giving Hamas more recruits than they’re losing.
I especially liked this FP piece where the author mentioned that the big driver they saw for terrorism was loss of land. That’s forced so much conflict and it seems likely to keep this raging for years to come.
I think an even bigger driver of terrorism than conflict is the fact that most people in Palestine have lived their entire lives in a state wholly governed by terrorists. From birth, children constantly hear how murdering Jewish civilians is one of life's holy accomplishments, how Jews are all racist liars, how Israel shouldn't exist, how Hamas is their rightful glorious leaders, etc. You shouldn't underestimate the impact of decades of racist, nationalist propaganda on young minds. In reality, war and terrorism are awful, and I wonder if the reality of it doesn't disillusion people of its glory.
That article is factually misleading about Beersheba, the ad hoc committee switched it from the Jewish to the Arab state in 1948 but it was taken in the war.
I don’t want to discount the effects of that but most people are also capable of knowing when they’re not getting the whole story. Only around a quarter of Palestinians approved of Hamas before the war.
>most people are also capable of knowing when they’re not getting the whole story.
Most people are conformists.
>Only around a quarter of Palestinians approved of Hamas before the war.
But a lot more approved of violence and terrorism, and they did prefer Hamas over alternatives (that's why no election for 17 years - because everyone knew Hamas would win).
Basically, there's nothing Israel can do that will compare with the main driver in Gaza: Hamas control of media and education or ability to just conscript. If there was nothing Hamas could use as propaganda, they'd just invent something. You can't compare the ability to recruit of a terror organization to that of pseduo-state. The state will always win. The state has a tax base, police, media, ways to make one conform. The terror org always needs to compete with the local power and that makes it way more difficult.
> But a lot more approved of violence and terrorism, and they did prefer Hamas over alternatives (that's why no election for 17 years - because everyone knew Hamas would win).
That makes no sense: why prevent an election you’re going to win? Palestinians don’t like the way Israel treats them, with no small amount of past incidents to base that on, but that doesn’t mean that Hamas is the only option.
> Basically, there's nothing Israel can do that will compare with the main driver in Gaza: Hamas control of media and education or ability to just conscript
This is just propaganda designed to absolve the Israeli right-wing of decades of bad decisions. If the Israeli government had done anything to help Palestinians have viable jobs or elections, for example, then the Hamas leaders would have had to justify their positions rather than blaming all of their problems on Israel. The underlying problem is that Netanyahu liked having Hamas as a justification for why they couldn’t allow Palestinians to have a state, and as a bogeyman to point to any time they needed political support.
>That makes no sense: why prevent an election you’re going to win?
Because it is Abbas (PA President) who decides when there are elections and he was always going to lose badly?
> If the Israeli government had done anything to help Palestinians have viable jobs or elections, for example, then the Hamas leaders would have had to justify their positions rather than blaming all of their problems on Israel.
This doesn't answer to my argument, that Hamas has quasi-state resources, and no outside radicalization could compete with the radicalization they can create by simply controlling education.
Anyway, your argument is that it's Israel's job to manage the country next door. That would make sense only in a non-two-state reality where Israel is legally responsible and controls the relevant areas. You can't run elections in areas you don't control. But Israel hasn't controlled the Strip since 2005...
> The underlying problem is that Netanyahu liked having Hamas as a justification for why they couldn’t allow Palestinians to have a state, and as a bogeyman...
Partially true. But consider the alternative was to wage a war like this one. For this reason, nearly all of the Israeli Left supported the same policy... How many people would have supported this war without radical Hamas aggressive to begin it?
> Anyway, your argument is that it's Israel's job to manage the country next door. That would make sense only in a non-two-state reality where Israel is legally responsible and controls the relevant areas. You can't run elections in areas you don't control. But Israel hasn't controlled the Strip since 2005...
Israel had military and, far more critically, economic control. They could at any time have worked towards a two party system or one of the other proposals - except that the people in power were committed to not doing that.
Just as Israel can’t solve this unilaterally, neither can anyone in Palestine. The Israeli right chose to prop Hamas up for years, but they could have tried to work with anyone else. What we’re seeing right now is what happens when two groups of corrupt hardliners see a profit in preventing compromise.
>Israel had military and, far more critically, economic control. They could at any time have worked towards a two party system or one of the other proposals - except that the people in power were committed to not doing that.
I don't understand what are you suggesting given that Israel didn't control the Strip (no military control), and that Hamas doesn't care for the economy?
>The Israeli right chose to prop Hamas up for years
True, but again remember the alternative was having a war like this one. Granted, cheaper than this one since Hamas was less powerful, but still a lot more deaths compared to what was the norm.
> I don't understand what are you suggesting given that Israel didn't control the Strip (no military control), and that Hamas doesn't care for the economy?
The Gaza Strip has been under blockade for decades and the West Bank for half a century. There are border crossings with Egypt and Jordan, but those require Israeli approval. Palestinian workers are excluded from most of the economy except where they provide cheap labor to Israeli businesses. Meanwhile, Israeli settlers have illegally taken Palestinian farmland and, in conjunction with the military, sabotaged Palestinian farms’ water supplies and done things like chop down orchards which take decades to recover.
> True, but again remember the alternative was having a war like this one.
Or making peace, supporting more democratic groups in Palestine, etc. Again, my point isn't that Israel is the only bad actor here but rather that the path they've chosen seems almost designed to ensure conflict continues by removing so many of the options for the average Palestinian and giving them as many reasons to hate Israel as possible. Every night-time raid, every person abducted off the street and mistreated, every business destroyed builds a grudge. Every opportunity to build personal accomplishments or wealth removed ensure that those grudges are likely to lead to a violent outcome or support for people who are doing that violence. I don't think war is inevitable in general but I don't see any way this trajectory doesn't lead to more of it.
I think we have a very different definition of 'blockade'. West Bank isn't blockaded by any normal definition. Gaza had some import limits, as it turned out not enough. Its beyond Israeli capability to 'support democratic groups' and peace simply wasn't on table (neither side's maximum is close to the other's minimum). This leaves security actions, and in general your idea is to blame every Palestinian/Arab intransigence on Israeli actions, and that's repeatedly belied by experience (e.g. the current war is exactly where Israel has been trying to avoid all these).
>>Each civilian killed by mistake has family, friends, and neighbors who might be inclined to avenge them and it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t end up giving Hamas more recruits than they’re losing.
Both Japan and Germany have been pretty well behaved since the Allies ground them to the dust during WW2 - why do you think it couldn't work here?
I’m not saying it’s impossible but that it’s a numbers game: if you have a messy battle with Hamas and kill a dozen people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, that’s a dozen lotto tickets for the n% chance that one of the people who knew them succumbs to the propaganda saying the answer is to join Hamas and strike back. Angry people make rash decisions, especially if they think they don’t have choices.
I would highly recommend reading the FP article I linked. The author has researched this for years and one of the things which has made this so depressing for me is more cogently discussed in their work about what causes people to resort to violence. Japan and Germany had their share of angry losers, but they also had productive opportunities for most people – the U.S. wasn’t taking their land for American settlers and crowding them onto reservations. If you’re a Palestinian teenager aware of the outside world but resigned to a life of subsistence farming or living on foreign aid, and then someone destroys your family’s farm and says that the land they stole is theirs now, violence is going to look more reasonable because pretty much everything else has been removed. That’s completely unlike WWII, or even Vietnam, and I don’t think we’ll see anything good come from it.
Now, imagine some fantasy where Israel leaves occupied Palestine to a UN peacekeeping mission or, say, the United States gives a big chunk of BLM land to anyone who wants to emigrate (not saying this is politically possible, just for the sake of argument). You’re that same Palestinian teenager who’s been shat on your entire life but now you have the option of likely being killed fighting on behalf of people you couldn’t vote for and clearly don’t care about you … or you could do literally anything else with your life and have a much better chance of living to age 30. Having options is hugely transformative and I think any path out of this has to involve finding one.
>or, say, the United States gives a big chunk of BLM land to anyone who wants to emigrate
For people who don't know, especially non-Americans, "BLM land" refers to unoccupied rural, wild land mainly in the western US states that's owned and managed by the federal government's Bureau of Land Management. It has nothing to do with the Black Lives Matter movement.
> Japan and Germany have been pretty well behaved since the Allies ground them to the dust during WW2 - why do you think it couldn't work here?
The grinding into dust was a small part of the reason for the successful outcome
The main victor in WWII poured vast resources into rebuilding the economies of Germany and Japan, ensured their viability as nation states, fostered democracy and encouraged the creation of an environment fostering equality, cooperation and growth. This all ensured residual bitterness was overcome relatively quickly.
Israel so far has done very much the opposite to the Palestinians. The prospects for long term peace look grim without a more magnanimous victor.
The West Bank is every year more decimated by settlements with Palestinians forced into tighter and tighter enclaves. This is not a recipe for long term peace
grinding them into the dust was not a 'small part of the reason', it was the only reason it worked in the first place. What do you think would have happened had the allies given billions of dollars in aid to Germany while the Nazi's were still in power? They would do exactly what the Palestinians have done with the aid they got - bought more weapons and killed more Jews.
Palestine has already received much, much, much more aid - in inflation adjusted dollars per capita, than Germany ever did - the only missing ingredient is destroying the terrorists and their supporters that run the country and then controlling, with absolute power, what that money is spent on - only then will things change for the better for both Israel and the Palestinians.
The reality on the ground in the West Bank runs contrary to this story.
Two infitadas crushed, Arafat long dead, a supine administration facilitates Israeli military occupation, Israeli settlers continue to pour in, expropriation and colonisation continue, the Israeli army dominates a territory where things only change for the worse for Palestinians.
In the West Bank "destroying the terrorists and their supporters that run the country" had lead to settlers and the army forcing Palestinians into every smaller enclaves making a Palestinian state increasingly unviable.
So no. Please do not claim that "grinding them into the dust" is going to lead to a better future for Palestinians. It is leading to colonisation and oppression.
we will have to agree to disagree - perhaps distasteful, but a generation may need to be sacrificed in order to get lasting peace - just like was done in germany and japan during ww2.
Did lots of non-combatants die? without a doubt. Is it sad? also without a doubt.
Were all the generations after that allowed to grow up and live in relative peace and prosperity because of that? Yes they were.
The reason things keep getting worse for the Palestinian's is because they insist on squandering any aid they get on buying more and more weapons - very little of that makes it to the 'women and children'. Until that cycle is stopped, nothing will change.
Hamas is perfectly willing to use their own women and children as human shields - those terrorists need to be killed with extreme prejudice, which will include a lot of collateral damage - until that happens, there will be no peace for anyone.
> just like was done in germany and japan during ww2.
The difference is that the USA did not expropriate and colonise the majority of their territory and reduce them to servile status, which is what is happening in the West Bank. Instead it ensured a viable homeland and democracy. Neither of which are happening in the West Bank.
The long term trajectory there is towards reduction of Palestinians to second class status, the inverse of what happened in Japan and Germany.
> those terrorists need to be killed with extreme prejudice, which will include a lot of collateral damage - until that happens, there will be no peace for anyone.
I agree that Hamas are disgusting and should be stopped.
Equally, Israeli colonisation needs to be stopped and until that happens, there will be no peace for anyone.
I always considered Gandhi suggestion for the Jews to suicide as a protest against the holocaust quite distasteful, yours seem a lot worse. But perhaps consider that the fact that the median age in Gaza is 18 years old, as an indication that maybe a generation has already being sacrificed. Or maybe, if we are going to abandon any trace of humanity in search of a solution, are you suggesting to sacrifice a generation on the Israeli side?
> Each civilian killed by mistake has family, friends, and neighbors who might be inclined to avenge them and it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t end up giving Hamas more recruits than they’re losing.
I am not so sure about that.
I don't recall a bunch of anti-British terrorist Germans out for revenge for Dresden after WWII.
Nor have there been a bunch of anti-American terrorist Japanese out for revenge for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Even in the US, there really isn't a terrorist movement among indigenous people for revenge for the atrocities perpetrated on them by the United States (Wounded Knee being only one of many).
I think revenge can be a factor in radicalizing, but I think it has to be tied to some hope of advancing a goal beyond revenge for it to pick up steam.
Basically, I think it comes down to options. After WWII, the average person in Germany or Japan wasn’t forced out of their home and livelihood, and the Marshall plan was quite effective at giving people peaceful options to be proud of. What I’m not seeing now is how Palestinians get something similar, and if you push people into a corner even non-violent people will conclude they have no alternative.
Consider how that would have gone if we had then moved settlers into that space, including areas we hadn’t formally claimed, and dared the former residents to make us leave. There’s a big difference between “we have to rebuild” and “other people are living well in your fathers’ homes but you live in a squalid camp”.
Actually something like that happened with Kaliningrad after WWII. The German population was forced out and Russian population brought in. The language was changed to Russian.
Definitely, but Kaliningrad had something like 100k people out of a total German population of roughly 80 million? I'm sure plenty of them had grudges but they didn't have an outlet to act on them unless they wanted to sneak through another country on their way to suicidally attack the USSR and, what I think is most important, the alternative was to build a comfortable life in Germany proper, where they were fully integrated with the language, customs, and political system. Grudges don't usually turn into violence, especially with suicidal odds of retaliation, when people have hope. I'm sure there were plenty of old Germans complaining about it – over beers, with full bellies, and going home to warm beds unwilling to do anything which would risk those comforts.
My argument is that Israel needs to figure out how to get to that level for Palestine: if you want peace, you want people to have prosperous farms and businesses to focus their energies on and confidence that if they do so those won't be taken away or destroyed.
In this case it’s also complicated by the lead up to the Cold War: I’m sure plenty of Germans resented that but even the ones who would consider violence knew that there was no likelihood of being able to win a military confrontation with the USSR. Attacking an Allied military occupation in Germany would not only have had no direct effect, it might have made things worse if that lead the American army to withdraw and leave the troublemakers to the tender mercies of the Red Army.
Again, my point was that while those countries didn’t have it great, they had peace after brutal wartime conditions and the prospect of rebuilding. Yes, having to flee would be unpleasant but they ended up in another part of their country where they were unquestionably welcome, spoke the language, and were able to participate in the government (which certainly hadn’t been the case for the previous decade for anyone who wasn’t a committed Nazi), and then the victors were rather generous in helping them rebuild.
They sound eerily similar to the reporting done by Wikileaks over what the Americans did over in Iraq and Afghanistan.
1: Define all males killed or captured as combatants and thus valid military target.
2: Either redefine torture or outsource it.
3: Define every military operation as critical to counter terrorism and part of self defense.
The media response back then was that this is just normal part of the horrors of war, and that this kind of reporting "don't tell us much that we didn't already know in broad outline".
Thinking about a conflict between nations or large groups of people in terms of common law is not the right approach. Before going further I do want to say that I do not condone torture, prisoners of war and/or detained civilians should not be subjected to violence after they have surrendered or been captured. That being said, the only way to think about this is in terms of a war. Israel has officially declared war on Hamas which is the ruling body of the Palestinian territories. A war does not end when the soldiers involved in the first battle are killed, it does not have to only be defensive and it does not have to be proportionate. Other nations may attempt to influence the conduct of nations who are at war but the only recourse beyond political and economic pressure is military action. Israel has no obligation to stop the war until they have achieved their goal which is understandably the complete elimination of Hamas and an end to any further attacks on Israel. This is both a reasonable and an achievable goal given the territory involved and its proximity to Israel. They are not fighting a war halfway around the globe for reasons that may hypothetically affect them at some point in the future. They are fighting on the very borders of their country after just the latest and most horrific attack out of a long history of sustained violence against them. So yes I do think your proposition is unreasonable, I know that if my country was in the same situation that they would respond in the same way and I suspect every last country in the world able to defend itself would do the same.
Isn't defense also supposed to be targeted against an aggressor? How could the millions of innocent civilians that Israel is displacing, destroying all their houses and belongings and killing (and maybe torturing as described in this article), be considered in any way as aggressor?
if a terrorist hid in an appartement building, and the police came, start killing all the inhabitants of the building and destroyed the building, in order to stop that terrorist, would you be wondering if that response is legitimate defense? I don't think so.
What if that terrorist was launching rockets from that apartment? Would it be justified then? These things aren't black-and-white. I don't want to be the person who says how much collateral damage is okay.
Israel has a proven ability to do precision strikes on apartment buildings that would basically only target the terrorist - we've seen them do this - but they choose to level entire buildings instead. You can probably figure out why they choose that option.
Israel also has the proven ability to level all of Gaza, but they fact that they don't doesn't mean much. Outsider speculation on Israeli military objectives is meaningless.
Wars don't end when one side gets yelled at. They either end with diplomacy or victory.
you and the OP are conflating civil war with laws of war. October 7th was clearly an act of war, and war has been the result. Hamas knew this, but relied on Hezbollah and Houthies pitching in in a much larger way, they miscalculated and Gaza suffers.
Gaza suffering is the best thing for Hamas. Israel is doing the best possible thing for Hamas and that's why Israel should stop. Because worse than unjustified, their actions are stupid, unless you are a politician saving face.
Pray tell, imagine yourself as a 10 year old Palestinian kid who lost half of his family, his house and several friends to Israeli military action. What are the odds that you are willing to die in order to harm Israel in any way, shape or form?
Again, this is the best scenario for Hamas. Their leaders are literally not even in Palestine, Israel could decimate the population thrice and chances are that the amount of terrorists would increase.
I don't think they miscalculated. Almost everything in this benefit them in almost every possible ways. The horrors of Gaza makes them almost look nice to the eyes of some (they never have been more popular in Palestine and in the world), and makes sure they will have no shortage of terrorists in the many years to come, among the innocent victims and their brothers and sons/orphans.
I don't imagine they care or didn't anticipate for those killing of innocent people.
I think it's pretty clear Hamas's main objective was to derail the rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. They achieved that. It's also clear they don't care what the cost is to Gazans.
Sure, if you completely ignore any previous history and the fact that Israel was created by stealing Palestinians’ land
From the other side, you could say Palestinians have never stopped defending themselves
This is not war, this is a brutal genocidal occupation that started many years ago and that Israel is trying to “complete” now by forcefully displacing all Palestinians
The end goal seems to be to occupy as much of “ancestral Israel” as possible
Israel was not created by "stealing Palestinian land."
"Palestinians have never stopped defending themselves." Do you mean when they explode suicide vests and shoot rockets at cities? Is that what you call defending themselves?
"genocidal occupation..." I find it hilarious that people can say a population with some of the highest growth on the planet is at the same time suffering a genocide.
"The end goal seems to be to occupy as much of “ancestral Israel” as possible." Explain how forcing your citizens to leave Gaza in 2005 fits into this master plan.
Please explain how the state of Israel magically appeared in its current location without taking any land from anyone
Please explain how the 2023 and the 2005 governments are the same
And also please explain why the definition of genocide has absolutely no references to population size or growth, yet you keep bringing it up to justify what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people
Not OP, but it magically appeared by League of Nations (UN) vote in 1948.
"Stealing land" is a very one-sided war to look at it. The legalities and mortality of land captured in self defence are debatable to some extent, but clearly not theft. Pre 1948 there was never a Palestinian state (no Palestinian government, currency, army).
2005 disengagement was a more right-wing government. Interestingly, the real peace actions in Israel tend to be achieved by the right wing government.
But if by your argument every Israeli government is somehow a separate state entity, why did the terrorist attacks continue non stop through right wing and left wing Israeli governments?
War is not genocide. Using overly emotive terms does not make your argument stronger.
> it magically appeared by League of Nations (UN) vote in 1948.
> "Stealing land" is a very one-sided war to look at it. The legalities and mortality of land captured in self defence are debatable to some extent, but clearly not theft
Why does it need to be some other state there to be theft?
If some lobbied politicians voted to establish a state that takes over your house and farm, would you just consider it ok? Because they voted for it? So then it’s not theft?
If then the people that take over your non-state land, start taking over your neighbors’ land, sometimes even killing them, that’s also not theft? Because the UN voted for it?
Also, Israel keeps doing it. Even right now, illegal settlement activity in the West Bank (as well as violence) are ongoing and increasing. Do you not consider that theft either?
Not sure what you mean about the Israeli government
What’s going on now is clearly not a war but genocide. The historical context, the literal intent expressed by Israeli political and military leadership, as well as the insane slaughter and destruction executed by Israel both in Gaza and the West Bank, all together very clearly fit both the dictionary and legal definitions of genocide
You think denying that makes Israel’s horrendous actions any better?
You have a very simplistic view of the history. Many Arabs actually aren’t native to the land either, they moved there for work that the new Jewish immigrants provided. In fact there was significant mutual cooperation and benefit. Land wasn’t stolen either, but bought after the Ottomans empire fell and it became legal for Jews to buy Muslim land (the ottomans had some nasty rules).
If you’re referring to 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement. Many millions of people have fled war, more numerous than this, but yet that is the most infamous.
> 700k Palestinians leaving in 1948, there was no historical order to evict anyone from outside the future Israeli borders, fact is they fled either from fear or through encouragement
What weasel way to say killing and displacing the Palestinian to steal their land
On top of that, regardless of whatever history, it’s something that is happening right now. Everyday settlers are forcing Palestinians out of their homes, farms and land in the West Bank
Or are you saying Palestinians in the West Bank are also just “fleeing either from fear or through encouragement”?
John J. Mearsheimer has weighed in on characterizing what Israel is doing against the Palestinians.
"I do not believe that anything I say about what is happening in Gaza will affect Israeli or American policy in that conflict. But I want to be on record so that when historians look back on this moral calamity, they will see that some Americans were on the right side of history.
What Israel is doing in Gaza to the Palestinian civilian population – with the support of the Biden administration – is a crime against humanity that serves no meaningful military purpose. As J-Street, an important organization in the Israel lobby, puts it, “The scope of the unfolding humanitarian disaster and civilian casualties is nearly unfathomable.”
While rockets are the main weapon (they also like to do stabbings) used in the palestinian-israeli conflict over the last years, the main reason of israeli palestinian hate is their past love of exploding inside busses and restaurants during the first[1] and second intifada[2]
honestly since the iron dome we are kind of "fine" with the occasional rocket (on a personal but also to some extent on a political level)
If you attack me and I shoot you, you're to blame for your death, not me.
If a country attacks me and I counterattack to make sure you can't attack me anymore, you remain at blame.
There are details, like deliberate civilian attacks vs collateral, but at the end of the day, the duty of a country is to protect it's own citizens, and not the citizens of the aggressor.
You are reading very selectively (and I think fir a reason):
> From 2004 to 2014, these attacks have killed 27 Israeli civilians, 5 foreign nationals, 5 IDF soldiers, and at least 11 Palestinians[11] and injured more than 1900 people.[12] Their main effect is their creation of widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life among the Israeli populace.
Please at least try to stay true to the facts, even if you are not willing to steelman the other's arguments.
> You are reading very selectively (and I think fir a reason):
I've wrote what is in Overview section in the article. Which is "The rockets have killed 28 people and injured hundreds more."
> Please at least try to stay true to the facts, even if you are not willing to steelman the other's arguments.
Please don't imply intentions that were not mine. When I skimmed the article, I literally didn't see the information you mentioned. What would even be the point of that "selective reading"? Are we discussing a difference of 10-20 people against a figure of 17,000? This doesn't make sense.
Technically they killed more than 28 total people, although I agree with the notion that whether it's 28 or 40 doesn't really move the needle very much.
I didn't mean to get into actually comparing "who had more reasons", I was simply pointing out that whatever reasons one had in their mind (good or bad, it doesn't matter), those reasons cannot be an excuse for such actions.
It's ... interesting ... to note that this is precisely the sort of "ticking time bomb" scenario often raised in justification of torture and rampant surveillance:
It would be interesting to see how well the abusive and transgressive approach fares against one that's far more sympathetic to the interrogatee. U.S. experience from the Iraq war was that soft-touch interrogations were far more effective.
This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming.... Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.”
(There are other instances of F.B.I. and military interrogators reporting both that testimony obtained under torture is either misleading or no more accurate, useful, or timely than that obtained under sympathetic treatment. I believe there was a Fresh Air Interview following 9/11 / the 2nd US-Iraq War though I've yet to locate it. There's a searchable archive for anyone with stronger search-fu here: <https://freshairarchive.org/>. Specifically matching "interrogation": <https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation>.)
Israel isn't defending itself from an immideate threat at this point, but if Hamas isn't fully destroyed, atrocities like the ones commited on October 7 will happen again.
As an Israeli, I've had to sprint for a shelter many times in my life because of Hamas rocket fire toward our cities, and if Hamas remains after this, it would continue to happen, and they would continue to funnel all of Gaza's resources into their terrorist activities while the actual people will continue to starve.
I keep hearing "3. The defense has to be proportionate" but how does that make sense?
The point is to remove Hamas from a position of power. If that happens with fewer casualties, do they then continue war and kill a few more just to be "proportionate"? That makes no sense.
Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender.
> The point is to remove Hamas from a position of power. If that happens with fewer casualties, do they then continue war and kill a few more just to be "proportionate"?
Proportionality is a maximum limitation in just war theory, not a measure of minimum acceptable violence. (The same is generally true in more personal law when proportionality is a component of self-defense provisions.)
> Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender.
No, you want a resolution with acceptable conditions which align with your cause: unconditional surrender necessarily achieves that, but it is by no means generally necessary.
As others have said, Israel is still under constant rocket/missile shower from Gaza. So I think it's safe to conclude that your point 2 is met as well.
1. Hamas is still holding hostages and firing missiles and promises to attack over and over, leading to a situation where the border communities are ethnically cleansed because nobody sane is going to just wait there for the next attack. The defence is to remove the threat for good.
2. This formulation is mind-reading. I recall the more correct formulation is asking what the "reasonable person" would do. Or in this case the 'reasonable state'. It's probably impossible to define a reasonable state without sneaking in our preferences. But if we look at the past record of democracies, they were very aggressive in similar situations.
3. There are reams of papers on proportionality with never any clear conclusion, because the definition was intentionally made to be subjective. The better options are to look at other states are doing (a lot more dead in the campaign against ISIS) or to compare the likely futures given each course of action and see where less people are killed:
There's no peace with Hamas, and they won't let themselves be unelected peacefully. So at best we can expect having another war. We need to compare the future of continuing this war, to the future of stopping and having another one a bit later. I can see a lot of scenarios where the future war is bigger and more destructive compared to this one (the future war would have to retake areas cleared in this one; Hamas could take over the West Bank in the meantime, or manage to drag Hezbollah into the war next time).
> I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. You may think it is justified in doing so but it still is payback imho.
This is absolutely not the case. A few other people have written about why your numbered list makes this clear, but I want to take a different tack.
This war is costing Israel a lot. It's costing the lives of soldiers. It's hurting Israel's economy indirectly. It is directly very expensive. It's prolonging an ongoing situation which is very traumatic for many Israelis (rockets shot at them and having to go to bomb shelters).
Most importantly, many Israelis want to see the hostages released, and while there are many good arguments for why this war is helping to achieve that goal, there are many good arguments against the war if the purpose is to return hostages.
Despite all of the above, Israelis are in general very unified in wanting this war to continue until Hamas is destroyed. This includes many right-wing Israelis who may have nationalistic/territorial aspirations, but it also includes almost the entire Israeli left, who dislike the current government and hate Netanyahu and some members of his cabinet.
The reason everyone is willing to pay such a high price, and being for waging a war that is costing so much, is not just revenge. It's because Israelis truly feel, to their core, that Hamas has proven themselves to be an enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise Israelis are just never going to be safe again.
> It's because Israelis truly feel, to their core, that Hamas has proven themselves to be an enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise Israelis are just never going to be safe again.
Has there been public debate in Israel wheter:
1. It is realistic to eradicate Hamas.
2. To what extent Israel's operation will sow new hate and resistance among the Palestinians, so that the risk of future attacks increases, whether that be by Hamas or any other resistance group.
1. All the time, though not quite as much as outside Israel. I think outsiders don't feel quite as determined as Israelis do - we believe that it's achievable because we feel we are fighting for our lives, to an extent - which makes a lot of things that are hard-but-not-impossible to achieve suddenly achievable.
2. Yes, there is a bit of talk about "the day after" and how to keep the peace. No one really knows or has good answers here. (I have my answers for what should happen short-term and long-term, but luckily I have no part in this government!)
Individual self-defense is legally restricted in your (and my) country because you can rely on the state to take up the fight once the immediate threat has passed. If someone tells you that they're going to come and shoot you at some point in the future, you call the police, and the police will pre-emptively use force against them by putting them in jail. At least that's the theory.
I agree that Israel are probably being recklessly indifferent to civilian lives and likely committing war crimes, but Hamas explicitly has the genocide of the Jews as their founding principle. For Israel to be safe, Hamas has to go. I can't see any other way this ends, and with the way Hamas embeds themselves within the civilian population, collateral damage is inevitable. Although, to repeat, I do think Israel need to do more to minimise it.
Israel’s response is disproportionately aggressive as they’re dropping air bombs on civilian infrastructure and putting a blockade on basics like food, medicine, water.
That being said at an international level, it’s an anarchy. If Israel wants to commit genocide and wipe Gaza and Westbank off the map, they likely have the power to do so.
At this point, they are seeking pent up revenge and likely no longer see Palestinians on equal footing as humans.
I’m likely generalizing but from what I see in TikTok, it’s pretty gore out there.
Hamas has achieved the goal of bringing the IDF to its level of inhumanness.
Nations at war defend themselves by degrading the military might and desire to wage war of the enemy state. I find Israel's actions to be overly callous towards civilian death, but it's important to keep in mind that civilian death was inevitable once the government of Gaza decided to invade Israel and intentionally target civilians.
With that same logic you can justify the civilian deaths of almost any conflict. Every war crime will be justified. Japanese internment? Justified. Hiroshima? Justified. Agent Orange in Vietnam? Justified. Genocide of 2million Filipinos by the US Army? Justified.... It's exhausting just thinking about these atrocities so I'll take a break
No, because there's a huge difference between deliberately targeting civilians vs collateral damage.
Genocide, which is the intent and actions to destroy an entire people, is never justified, because it presupposes you'll target and kill many civilians to achieve it.
True, the distinction between targeting civilians and collateral damage is significant and morally relevant. However, it's important to recognize that even actions labeled as 'collateral damage' can sometimes reflect a disregard for civilian life. While genocide, the intentional destruction of a people, is unequivocally condemnable, we must also scrutinize military operations that, though not aimed at civilians, consistently result in substantial civilian casualties. Such outcomes might indicate a failure to adequately value and protect innocent lives. Just as deliberate attacks on civilians are never justifiable, so too are military strategies that do not prioritize minimizing harm to civilians. Both scenarios reflect a moral failing in respecting the sanctity of human life.
>so too are military strategies that do not prioritize minimizing harm to civilians. Both scenarios reflect a moral failing in respecting the sanctity of human life.
Strong disagree there. There's always a tradeoff, and where that boundary lies is never going to be fixed. There will always be "acceptable losses" in warfare, to do otherwise is to essentially surrender.
Moreover, Israel has taken actions to reduce civilian losses in the form of evacuations, roof knocks and the like. Conversely Hamas is well known to use civilian areas for military purposes. And this doesn't even consider hostage treatment.
If we talk about minimizing harm, then Hamas is doing the opposite, and thus is a greater moral failure
Your perspective on the complex situation in the Israel-Palestine conflict raises important points, but it's crucial to consider the broader context and implications of these actions. Firstly, the concept of "acceptable losses" in warfare, while a grim reality, should not be accepted without rigorous scrutiny, especially in conflicts involving highly asymmetric powers. The Palestinian civilian population often bears a disproportionate burden of these losses, raising serious humanitarian and ethical concerns.
Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.
The humanitarian impact on the Palestinian population extends beyond immediate casualties. The long-term effects of the blockade on Gaza, restrictions on movement, and economic hardships cannot be overlooked. These factors contribute to a broader context of suffering and human rights issues.
In discussing moral failings, it's essential to recognize the complexities and nuances of this conflict. The focus should be on seeking solutions that prioritize the protection of all civilians, uphold human rights, and work towards a just and sustainable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The sanctity of human life must be the cornerstone of any military strategy, and efforts towards peace must include addressing the root causes of the conflict, ensuring accountability, and respecting international laws and human rights for all parties involved.
>Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.
While I generally agree with the sentiment here, it's one of those where the tradeoff is in Israel's lives, versus those of Palestinians under Hamas rule. We could argue about the ratios here, but at the end of the day, I do believe that it's perfectly reasonable for a country to prioritize it's own losses, over those of an enemy nation's. When it crosses the line is largely a matter of opinion, rather than any rigorous principle.
Of particular note,
> Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas.
This has a specific carve out for the exact case which you speak of. If the civilian area is used for military operations then, by international law, it's now a permitted target. The reason is obvious: To do otherwise would make civilian areas a shield and encourage further use of them for military use. As long as Hamas continues to use them as such, they will continue to, by international law, be legitimate targets. (there are other catches, and it doesn't mean one man with a gun in a hospital means you can blow the whole thing up.)
As for the bit on morality, that was largely in response to the implication that the moral failings were largely Israel's. In the end, this is war, and there are often few "good guys" in war. But while morality is largely the domain of the victor, the rules are not nearly as directly set. From what I've seen, Israel appears to be far more in line with the rules of war than Hamas. That Hamas has not managed to achieve high civilian kill counts is not for lack of trying, but instead for lack of ability. Their "lower impact" should not be taken as any form of moral high ground.
> Genocide, which is the intent and actions to destroy an entire people, is never justified, because it presupposes you'll target and kill many civilians to achieve it
And that’s exactly what Israel is doing to Palestinians
Many government officials, including Netanyahu, have openly made genocidal statements, like calling Palestinians Amalek, calling them sub-human/animals, saying there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and calling for leveling the place, not to mention the thousands of bombs dropped, the insane number of civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed
Seems like some people will wait until all Palestinians are killed and then say, oh I guess it was genocide
Maybe Israel doesn’t want to directly kill 2+ million people, but they are sure trying to get rid of them. They are: 1) killing and displacing them, 2) making it insanely hard for them to live in Gaza (destroying hospitals, schools, parks, government buildings, etc) and 3) pushing for neighboring countries to take them as refugees
And if Israel get away with it, the West Bank will be next (I mean they are already on it)
I don't want to start another top-level thread on this topic, as it is contentious enough already - but just as an aside, the UN General Assembly just passed a (symbolic) resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire with 153 to 10, an even stronger majority than the last resolution.
Of course UN votes are always subject to all kinds of political considerations and power dynamics and the saying "nations have no friends, only interests" still applies, but when such a wide range of countries from completely different geopolitical alignments vote for this (e.g. pro-palestinian but strongly anti-Hamas Egypt together with hosts of Hamas Turkey, Qatar and Iran, together with pro-Israel western countries such as France and Switzerland), this does give a strong hint how the world opinion on the matter seems to be.
It doesn’t really say anything. Why? Because the cost of voting is zero. The UN is toothless.
In fact, you’ll see many countries who are actively benefiting from the conflict through arms sales voting for a ceasefire.
In fact, the UN often nicely provides political cover for countries. It lets them do whatever they want behind the scenes then vote for peace and then trumpet it in their domestic media.
There was a ceasefire. IDF ended it because Hamas fired rockets and didn't hold up their end of the hostage release bargain. There was a ceasefire before that, which Hamas broke by invading Israel and torturing, raping and murdering over a thousand innocent civilians.
Thats not completely true. By the time Hamas fired that rocket the time has already ended of the truce (7:00 am of that day), and Hamas was clear that it could not meet the extension criteria (brining out 10 more hostages from the category being exchanged (children and women)), it even proposed moving to another criteria (elderly), but Israel refused
Again watch your language and only claim what has been proved (rape has not). I do agree atrocities were committed tho, but to stay partial and critical in this assessment we must be clear with ourselves on what has been proven to have happened, and what didn't. For instance we know Israel is also responsible for a portion of the killing of Israeli civilians on the 7th of October. Many burned bodies for instance turned out to be Hamas operatives hit with hellfire missiles. So let's be careful
Nothing, because I was not replying to that. I was replying to the statement that "rape has not been proved" and everyone stating otherwise should "watch their language".
I saw no reason not to believe the rape accusations of Hamas - many women came forward with this and it would absolutely fit with all the other things Hamas did on Oct. 7 - how they paraded around Shani Louk and then later killed her.
Unfortunately, rape by Israeli guards of Palestinian captives would also be believable from the reports you hear about treatments of captives.
As far as I'm aware, there is no single first person testimony of the rape, let alone any independently verified forensic reports. We've seen so many debunked stories coming out of israeli side. Remember the 40 beheaded babies that biden supposedly saw then the white house had to quickly back out of? Or the story that pregnant women were cut up alive and their fetuses extracted? Or that babies were thrown in the ovens? Let's also not forget their many lies before, like how they denied killing Shireen Abu Akleh.
These outrageous claims are fitting with the panic then overreaction we're seeing on the israeli side, resulting in them shelling their own kibutzes, and now murdering tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in cold blood, after announcing terrible things like they're not looking for accuracy, but damage, and that they're fighting "human animals". Not only that, but some stories like the last two in the previous paragraph have actually been documented to have been done by israelis during previous massacres like Der Yassin and Sabra and Shatila.
As far as the abuse done by israel on Palestinian women and even children
> The UN doesn't speak for the world, regardless of what they may claim.
That might be true for Guterres but not for the GA. The delegations that voted were not directed by the UN but by their respective countries. No one forced them to vote for this.
Israel itself gets its legitimacy from the UN resolution in 1949.
> But why would anyone ask them to cease fire against an enemy that won't return the favour?
My understanding of the term "ceasefire" is that it always applies to both sides - so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well.
> so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well.
But it is an absurd request, like calling for a ceasefire between Britain and Germany at the height of World War 2. Like "legitimacy" and "international law", the concept makes no sense when thought about clearly.
It is war. Wars end with a believable long term peace, most commonly due to the absolute destruction of one side's ability to fight. A peace is meant to be lasting, which means people have to believe in its durability. But there is no way to believe it in the case of Hamas short of a complete Israeli victory (i.e. occupation and total disarmament), because they have demonstrated that they are always engaged in preparation for the next attack. Any pause in the fighting would obviously only be temporary and adopted for military advantage.
> But it is an absurd request, like calling for a ceasefire between Britain and Germany at the height of World War 2.
Except, al-Qassam is not a regular military with weapons of mass destruction at its disposal. An overwhelming casualties have been civilians.
> A peace is meant to be lasting, which means people have to believe in its durability.
Just now I see Israelis calling for a war on Qatar, Iran, and Lebanon. Where does one find solution for this obsession with violence, if not in Tel Aviv? By dismantling the settlements in the West Bank and immediately moving to secure a state for the Palestinians?
"Ceasefire" only applies to civilized parties than can actually uphold agreements, to which Hamas do not belong.
Either way, for the parent post being flagged, it is absolutely correct in its assessment and its flagged status is just a small glimpse on why the collective west faces the existential threat and does as much work at dismantling itself as its enemies (which too do so in the open).
The actual winning move would be strengthening sanctions against Iran and its proxies, quick eradication of any actual and perceived threats in the middle east and the lift of unofficial ban by the West to Ukraine to conduct military operations on the territory of ruskieland as well as supply of all long-range standoff munitions that are scheduled for a decommission in the next three to five years so that we can actually save money for US by being more efficient at doing so with immediate and second-order strategic benefits to everyone involved.
> so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well
During which Hamas would regroup, recover, and then be impossible to defeat and then would go on to commit another October 7th
What should in fact happen is another humanitarian pause allowing more hostages to be released but relief for civilians in conflict.
Hamas is now demanding all Palestinian prisoners, i.e. those who have committed attrocities in the past to be released which will never happen as it would incentivize further attacks against Israelis
I'm reminded of US Secretary of Defense, McNamara's lessons he learned from being involved in that quagmire.
'Even though the United States is the strongest nation in the world, it should never use that power unilaterally: "if we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning.'
He was talking about our mistake applying unilateral policy in Vietnam. We didn't apply his advice to Iraq and look where it got us.
It's really disappointing to see so many exceptions to the no politics rule right when we need that rule the most. There really isn't anything to be gained by discussing stories like this. We all know that atrocities are taking place. It's a war zone.
Update: Actually, I went back and took a closer look at the couple examples I thought supported my argument that PG had some kind of bias on the issue. On second glance, I don't feel like I can honestly claim that he does. Perhaps he does, but I don't have any evidence on hand to support it. I don't want to be adding to the confusion here so I'm going to have to walk back that claim. However, I still don't feel like this topic really belongs on HN. It's a tragedy all around and very important on the world stage. But it seems like there are too many groups that have an interest in steering the conversation one way or another for reasons that have nothing to do with the rights of the victims.
As vore's reply points out, HN does not have a no politics rule. If you want to know how we think about this, there are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you look at some of those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a look.
Sure, although it does often seem that the convention we have around it amounts to a de facto rule. And I really struggle to see how this article passes the usual test of "satisfying intellectual curiosity". It's mostly an emotional appeal that doesn't give much information. We certainly know that atrocities took place on Oct. 7 and I'm sure none of us are surprised to hear first hand accounts from the Palestinian side that are also horrific.
As many people have pointed out, the article comes from a heavily biased source. Saying that the article itself is interesting, regardless of the source, not only appears to overlook the quality of the article's content, but it also glosses over the harm that referring to biased sources does to the conversation. It seems like way oversimplifying the way that fraught conversations like this tend to go to just claim that the article itself should stand on its own. And, again, it could easily be argued that this article, in fact, doesn't stand on its own.
Also, in this moment, referring me to a list of past instances of people claiming that "HN is getting too political" feels pretty dismissive. I don't doubt that people have claimed that in the past, but that's not some sort of balm that makes me feel any less justified in claiming it now.
No, you are correct, there was no need for update - trivial scroll through his tweet history proves the accuracy of crossed out text (unless he deleted it).
You know what? I went searching just now for examples that I thought could support my argument. But I honestly couldn't find any that really seemed unambiguous or like they couldn't be interpreted in another way. And the ones I had in mind didn't seem like they clearly were arguing for one side of things when I looked at them a second time. So yeah...going to have to walk that particular claim back it seems. But I still don't think we really should be discussing the topic on HN. Seems too fraught to really get any value out of it.
I didn't see this comment until now, and tmnvix already said it, but I'd like to add some appreciation. It's dismayingly rare to see someone check their view against the data, change their mind, and say so. I guess it's not hard to understand why that is, but it's worth celebrating when someone goes the other way. I wish more of us would.
I'd just like to add that this highlights an issue that comes up again and again in highly charged topics: impressions so easily overshadow facts and many people put a lot of effort into propagating impressions to the point that they become accepted and commented on as if they are facts.
Ironically (given your original comment), you are exactly the type of person whose thoughts on this topic I would like to hear and the presence of people like you is why I do appreciate that some allowance for this topic has been made. That said, I know that it is a balancing act and I wouldn't like HN to become more tilted toward general politics.
Theres tons of evidence for this. Heres an example of pg furthering conspiracy theories: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1733146138226614465 (note: Rashida Tlaib has extremist viewpoints and has even been censored by the house for those views). Here is a tweet with misinformation about Al-Shifa hospital that he retweeted: https://x.com/GhassanAbuSitt1/status/1722977553101562156?s=2... (and didnt correct the record). Here is him posting about Gaza not having fuel for hospitals (even though Hamas had copious stockpiles of it): https://x.com/Beltrew/status/1717247691455971742?s=20 Here is him reposting https://x.com/evanhill/status/1732567824160235800?s=20 which is an extremely unfair comparison (to be more fair, compare the casualties, and get better sources for the actual damage. using "high end estimate" is an obviously biased comparison). There are plenty more, but you can look at his twitter for yourself.
All of this, I'd be ok with saying may be coming from an entirely sympathetic perspective and trying to find a way back to peace...but where is the sympathy for the other side? There is certainly much to criticize when it comes to the actions of the israeli government, but where is the sympathy for its people? Where are the calls to return the israeli hostages? Where are the tweets denouncing Hamas for the murder and rape of civilians? Non-existant. This was a man I had deeply respected. I bought all his books, read all of his articles, been to startup school multiple times to hear him talk, but this incredibly unfair bias made me lose SO much respect for him. I really want to be wrong about this and would welcome another perspective, but at this point I've literally gone through all his tweets back to Oct 7 and there isnt a single one sympathetic to the israeli people. Please prove me wrong.
Oct 7 isn’t when history started. Just a few days earlier, Israeli people were storming a mosque in Jerusalem. Seventy five years earlier, they were ethnically cleansing Palestine.
If you’d like to be biased, at least be open about it.
I honestly don't think this subject should be on here. I don't think it's possible for a coherent or respectful or even useful conversation to happen here. I haven't seen any conversation about this topic that hadn't gone to hell.
Yes, you're of course right—and at the same time, if I ask myself how to follow HN's core principle [1] in relation to this topic, I can't see "don't touch it at all" as right either. It may be an impossible quandary—but it's not in the spirit of this place to take an easy way out; or to put it differently, the easy way out (if one exists) is not in the spirit of this place.
What does "curiosity" mean in a context like this? It certainly needs to be more than just a technical dissection of details. I think it has to do with being open to learning. For that we have to be open to each other. And for that, we have to first find some space for the other within ourselves. Comments that have to do with annihilating the other (including in virtual form, such as by defeating them in internet battle) are therefore off-topic in a thread like this, as I posted above.
(Edit: there's also a kind of curiosity in walking into the impossible to find out what's doable; and also in taking a different approach with each attempt—which is why my pinned comment in this thread is different from last time.)
You're also absolutely right - I hadn't considered that point of view, and that we also shouldn't be "de facto" censoring subjects. I implore the community here to not ruin the general HN forum with the usual insanity around this subject.
I'm sorry, but even if I concede the notion that this piece promotes "intellectual curiosity" in some amount (how much?), this news source is highly biased and has been found to spread fake news especially on the events since October 7th including current war in Gaza.
There is real harm in spreading this information. As you may or may not know, mobs and individuals around the world are fed such false narratives that demonize Israelis/Jews. Combine this with either mental illness or religious fundamentalism and you get the kinds of lynching, hateful speech, violence threats, etc. against Israelis/Jews and sympathizers.
Is whatever "intellectual curiosity" you think you're promoting with this piece worth the health and lives of innocent people?
I would disagree with that policy in this case. In most other articles, the reader has a much better ability to understand the quality of the article from reading it. This audience is primarily technical and not political. This topic has such a long history and so much nuance to it, that an article about this topic can uniquely spread a false narrative to a non political reader. That being said, not every reader has little political understanding which makes having a discussion even harder. Imagine a physicist, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and artist trying to have a discussion about "reflections in time." With that topic, while a discussion may be difficult, it at worst isnt harmful. In this case, a false narrative can and has been used to further hateful ideas, hate speech, and actual crime. With those negative possibilities here, I think we should be erring on the side of caution and not on the side of curiosity.
A smaller reason why I disagree with this is that the responses to this topic are uniquely capable of alienating large quantities of people which is counter to what we'd want for a community like this.
With respect, Al Jazeera is one of the most biased sources covering the conflict. They are still lying about the rocket explosion at the hospital for example.
Even without lying, even if this article had been published by the Guardian or Atlantic this wouldn't be a quality article. It's a one sided witness statement with no information on wether Al Jazeera reached out to the IDF to obtain some sort of aknowledgement (which you'd do if you're confident in your story, just so you can say "IDF denied to comment").
I have compassion and sympathy for all victims of this war, including the kids interviewed in the article, but as of right now, the information presented is dubious at best.
Are you saying this article is dangerous because it may further engage folks that have been already enraged due to having been misinformation elsewhere to the point it could result in violence? Also how does that compare with the actual harm and health of innocent people mentioned in the article?
> Are you saying this article is dangerous because it may further engage folks that have been already enraged due to having been misinformation elsewhere to the point it could result in violence?
Yes
> Also how does that compare with the actual harm and health of innocent people mentioned in the article?
Even if the events as reported in the article are true, they are part of war.
Like it or not, Gaza's citizens chose Hamas as their elected government. Said government chose to go start a war with Israel. War is not elegant, and unfortunately innocent citizens on both sides pay the price.
I think you might be right that encouraging curious discussion of these topics is important to the mission of HN.
However, if the moderation approach is going to change, I think it would be better to do so explicitly through changes to the site guidelines rather than in an ad-hoc way. I don't think that this article is covering an 'interesting _new_ phenomenon' (emph. mine) as discussed in the guidelines, and indeed most of the comments are talking about moderation policy or the conflict in general as opposed to the details presented in the article. Perhaps it would be better to have a thread explicitly focused on members of the community engaging with each other as individuals, such as a hypothetical 'Ask HN: How has conflict personally affected you?' or 'Ask HN: How/why have your views on this conflict changed over time?'
The stories that the article has to tell are important, but they aren't the thing that people are discussing here. And moderating submissions instead of explicitly discussion-focused posts invites some of the concerns about sourcing and bias that have been raised in other comments.
It's not ad hoc, although I realize it looks that way, because the guidelines only cover a few of the principles we go by. The rest are described in the endless (and admittedly rather tedious) stream of moderation comments that I put out, which is why I link to HN Search queries so much.
It won't work to add all of them to the guidelines list because that would make the list so long that few would read it, and (worse) it would make it a bureaucratic sort of document that would be most out of sync with the intended spirit. In the long run I (think I) intend to compile those explanations into short (perhaps one paragraph each) glosses on the guidelines, and make it easy to link to.
As for most commenters not discussing the details of the OP: you're right. But that may be too much to expect in this case. To be able to discuss this topic at all without combusting is already a lot. That's also, btw, why I left my pinned comment open to replies (something I never do), and why the meta (why is this on HN, etc.) discussion is not downweighted the way it normally would be.
> What does "curiosity" mean in a context like this? It certainly needs to be more than just a technical dissection of details.
But then allowing this discussion on here is already misguided. Call me biased, but I don't think you're going to find a ton of experts on international law and the law of nations on a site aimed at technical discussion. Even in qualified circles, this discussion is already heavily biased.
I'd argue that in order to discuss topics like these, you ought to have a guided discussion, with experts present to correct polemic statements. (such as the 2nd top comment, that is currently trying to compare international law with laws affecting individuals, which is a gross misinterpretation of the legal situation of this war.) This is how well respected journalists and news outlets do it in my country.
I don't think a topic like this can be left to experts, and in any case we don't treat any other topic on HN like that. Of course that means people can be wrong; most of us are mostly wrong about most everything.
Al Jazeera is state propaganda run by the Qataris, who also fund Hamas. The one topic that they absolutely cannot provide unbiased commentary on is Israel-Palestine. Picking an AJ article as the jumping off point is akin to picking a Pravda or RT article as the jumping off point to discuss Ukraine-Russia.
I think this community is better than most at keeping things analytical, and you're better than any other moderator I've encountered in decades on online communities. But it's not exactly a neutral framing to kick off the discussion. An article about the numerous rapes and tortures committed by Palestinians during October 7th and on the hostages afterwards would likewise not be the most neutral.
"Qatar argues that some its critics misunderstand why it hosts Hamas’s political leaders – which is not so much out of ideological sympathy but because the US has asked it to."
> I don't think it's possible for a coherent or respectful or even useful conversation to happen here.
I've seen some variation of this sentiment both here on HN and elsewhere. It makes me wonder: is the topic so toxic that no conversation can happen at all? If that's the case, what's the appropriate forum for debate?
I'd argue that meatspace gathering places tend to not be much better (see: current debate about how this is playing out on college campuses), which has the net effect of chilling any discussion anywhere. That leaves op-ed pages, blog posts, Substacks, places where people can broadcast their opinion to the world...but not have to engage on it whatsoever. That doesn't feel like a great alternative to at least attempting to create space to talk about it.
Believe it or not, you're argument strongly resonated with me. However:
>It makes me wonder: is the topic so toxic that no conversation can happen at all?
I believe that the topic is so toxic and emotionally charged that it's almost impossible to have meaningful conversation about it. It's the "abortion" of geopolitics, where everyone is emotionally invested in their own way, distrusts/hates the other side or has such absolute positions that there is no point in arguing.
Now, it may still be worth the attempt (which I believe is the HN moderators' position on this matter). You have a really strong point that we should put in the effort to make space for this type of conversation. Unfortunately, all the evidence has convinced me that "polite, productive conversation" and "Israel/Palestine conflict" are mutually exclusive.
I see Hacker News as a tech-related with some general interest forum. I appreciate the high standards of dialogue and commentary on this website as well as the "intellectual exploration"-esque philosophy behind it. If a topic cannot conform to the above standard, I don't think it should be here - and that's out of necessity, to protect the environment of intellectual openness here.
Unfortunately, it may also be true that it's hard to find an alternative space to discuss this in society, that perhaps friends and family or your local community is not open to this discussion. That sites like Reddit are not great places for this discussion.
But HN cannot be the "everything" place and it's in this spirit that I think we should strongly consider limiting how much of this topic we welcome here, in the interest of protecting at least one great place for tech-related (with some general interest) intellectual pursuits.
I will let you be the judge - do you really find the rest of this thread constructive?
> I see Hacker News as a tech-related with some general interest forum. I appreciate the high standards of dialogue and commentary on this website as well as the "intellectual exploration"-esque philosophy behind it.
I think this is a more convincing argument to me of why a topic may not be appropriate for this forum. As for the rest of the thread, there are obviously some very low quality comments/sub-threads. But overall I've found these to be a lot less emotionally charged.
What was the strongest possible interpretation of the comment, which aired a desire to shut down discussion before it happened? FWIW, my response applies to every interpretation.
Thanks for not flagging the entire thread, at the very least.
Your comment broke the Assume good faith part. If you begin a comment with "Not sure if you're honest or poisoning the well", you're already on the wrong side of HN's guidelines. If you do that on so inflammatory a topic as this one, that's definitely flamebait.
They were asking to shut down discussion on a discussion board instead of just hiding or flagging the thread and getting on with their day (speaking of the guidelines...). They said the discussion was going to hell before nearly almost any posts popped up. I asked what the strongest interpretation of this comment was. With all the context, to be frank, it is poisoning the well and I gave the benefit of doubt in deference to the guidelines.
You call it definitely flamebait, but I expected no flames and no one flamed me. Based on the responses, comments and votes, it seemed to be recognized as an honest post (as it was).
What makes it flamebait is the statistically expected response, not the actual responses, which are subject to randomness.
It's just obviously against the site guidelines to say things like "not sure if you're being honest or poisoning the well", so please omit that kind of thing from your HN posts in the future.
Intent makes a comment flamebait. If it was obviously against the guidelines, like complaining that a submission is inappropriate, I wouldn't have posted it. Anyway, I'm interested to learn. What statistical analysis did you run to conclude what the expected response to my post would be?
I'm just speaking from long experience. The word "statistically" above just means "if you look at enough cases".
What makes a comment flamebait is the effect it has on the thread (that's the "bait" part). Intent doesn't determine this. If it did, it wouldn't be possible to post flamebait accidentally—which is actually how most flamebait comes about.
I've got a lot of experience on message boards too. I've never heard of accidental flamebait as a concept. Baiting a line (of fishing wire or text) is a deliberate act. Anyway,
What makes it flamebait is ... not the actual responses
What makes a comment flamebait is the effect it has on the thread
Aren't the actual responses to a comment the effect it has on a thread (as opposed to what you think the responses might be)?
Many, in fact most, trollish comments are posted by people who had no intention of being trollish and had no idea that their comments might land in trollish ways. The resulting flamewars are the same as if they had intended it. Does that help?
No, because just like you've moved the conversation away from trying to justify how my post breaks the hn guidelines, you're moving it again away from your indefensible stance on the definition of flamebait. Flame wars gets started by accident sometimes, yes. There are a myriad reasons for this. It has nothing to do with the definition of flamebait.
Of course it's possible that we have different definitions of flamebait. What I mean by it is when a post includes something inflammatory which is likely to generate an indignant response in either the person you're replying to or readers at large.
It's different when a moderator uses personal definitions for words as justification for taking action. The guidelines might as well say "posts are subject to our whims" at that point.
We need some sort of definitions in order to moderate at all. I wouldn't call them personal, and since the definitions are principled, I wouldn't call them whims either.
Obviously there's some interpretation involved, so different people would apply the same definition differently, but I don't think "not sure if you're being honest or poisoning the well" is such a borderline call.
My comment wasn't borderline. It was fine. If you look up this chain, every possible reason you brought up was addressed, defeated and subsequently abandoned. All that's left is that it was your whim. I can't really argue against that.
There are so few places to talk about it because one side always has a higher footing then the other. There does not exist a place where both sides are taken at 50/50, that doesn't exist for anything politically motivated. So what you get is people who tend to be around the middle, accepting that both sides are at fault. And then you get the extremist views, and those get comments so they jet up to the top.
HackerNews is proportionally North American, so you tend to get larger view set from English speaking North Americans. And non-English articles are largely ignored. And neither of these two populations speak English as their first language. So limiting yourself to English limits your view to English speaking view.
Statistically that seems quite improbable as Jews are only 0.2% of the worlds population vs the Arab and Muslim world (which majority supports Palestinians)
Edit: not to mention the CCP and Russia taking an anti Israel stance as well, both known to conduct massive online campaigns to align with their own agendas.
There are a lot of zionist christians and publications are much safer when reporting from a pro-Israel bias. Most muslims don't speak english so if a muslim is commenting about this topic, they're probably one of the few million in one of the english speaking countries.
And idk how many evangelists you'll find online outside very specific communities.
Plus a large percentage of Jewish people also don't speak English that well / at all, not to mention that you don't need to speak English to click upvote/downvote/flag/etc
It pattern-matches to an obvious antisemitic trope. If you didn't intend it that way, you should take better care to avoid coming across that way in the future, because this is not an effect that any HN comments should be generating.
Im glad to see the community engage with this -- there couldnt be a more significant current event happening right now and its jarring that it would be so silent.
Edit:
And why is it relevant here? At a minimum coworkers are suffering silently through it. The emotional damage just for internet bystanders is staggering.
In my experience, the "benefit of the doubt" has been lost in relation to this subject. I no longer believe it is possible to have any thread about this remain civil. It's tragic and a tragic subject, although I dispute the "there couldn't be a more significant current event" - lots of events are equally (or more) significant and relevant. I hope to be proven wrong, but I have doubts.
> I no longer believe it is possible to have any thread about this remain civil.
I bet almost no one in this thread is able to juggle three balls either, even though learning how to do so doesn't take all that much practice. But it does take some practice.
Should we be surprised when people are unable to do something that requires practice and education, when they lack both?
I (and many other users of this forum) have expectations on the minimum quality of discourse. Moreover, I am happy this forum exists with its quality of discussion. I am interested in preserving this high level of civilized interactions.
Time and time again, when it comes to the subject of Israel and Palestine, it has been shown that the discourse never meets the minimum standards I usually enjoy here. To the point where I am not sure if it's even theoretically possible.
To use your metaphor - if this were a forum about juggling, I would generally expect people to have an honest interest in juggling, and to have discussions about juggling. If every discussion about curling, on my juggling forum, devolved into abuse - it would be reasonable to avoid discussing curling (at a certain point).
> I am interested in preserving this high level of civilized interactions.
Are you opposed in principle to even higher levels?
> Time and time again, when it comes to the subject of Israel and Palestine, it has been shown that the discourse never meets the minimum standards I usually enjoy here. To the point where I am not sure if it's even theoretically possible.
How much compute did you apply to the proposition, and what set of algorithms are you personally working with?
> To use your metaphor - if this were a forum about juggling, I would generally expect people to have an honest interest in juggling, and to have discussions about juggling.
Agreed. This site is, to some degree, about systems and programming, which involves analysis and logic. I would therefore expect that people would at least have at least some interest in the exercise of sound analysis and logic....and yet, as you note, on certain topics our normal standards within this system (HN forums) cannot be met. Is this not a rather curious phenomenon? Do you believe that it is perhaps worthy of some analysis (especially considering lives are literally in the balance)?
> If every discussion about curling, on my juggling forum, devolved into abuse - it would be reasonable to avoid discussing curling (at a certain point).
A problem: that which can be "reasoned" is not necessarily true.
Another problem: sometimes action (and inaction) has deadly consequences. If it was you living in Israel or Gaza, do you think you would be advising complacency and disinterest on this matter?
It's not that I don't have an opinion (or even a strong one!) on this subject. The point is that everyone (and their mother) has a strong opinion, not only on the absolute morality of a side's actions, but on the morality of each source, of each agency involved, with various amounts of prejudice and superstition baked in.
Even worse, not one side is willing to really compromise. Even for the root issue of the Israel/Palestine conflict itself, it's impossible to "square the circle" on both the rights of each side, the motives of each side and the actions of each side. There's so much history and (mis) information flying around that it's hard for anyone to make a logical argument or contribute in a meaningful way.
I believe all of the above to be true and I believe the above could be overcome with earnest effort from both "sides" (if we are calling it that). Very, very rarely have I ever seen any attempt at compromising or meeting in the middle or having even a respectful conversation about this subject. So, inevitably, the conversation devolves into a mud-fight.
It's like "Godwin's Law" of geopolitics: any conversation about the Israel/Palestine conflict inevitably devolves into mud-slinging where both sides compare the other to Nazis.
So, forgive me if I want my tech-related forum to remain "mud-free".
I'm curious: do you present the above as opinions, or facts?
If facts, from where have you acquired the knowledge?
If opinion, have you any interest in the facts?
Reminder: THOUSANDS have died already, and many more will presumably due in the future. I appreciate that you prefer enjoying a psychologically comforting forum experience, but have you no concern for the experience of others on this planet?
If the vast majority of HN users can't juggle three balls simultaneously, but the few experts can, it seems fair that the experts shouldn't be restricted from juggling, as long as they comply with the rules.
So I believe that civilian casualties are intentional, and all the talk of safe areas (with no clear indication of what these areas are) is just a sham.
Watch the full interview. They offer him many outs, saying that perhaps there is a language barrier, and that he's going to do no favours to his country by saying that. But he insists that it is exactly what he means.
I don't speak Italian so can't do that but regardless of you have to find a former ambassador to Italy then you're scratching around, he was looking out of his post before any strategy of this war was fought and Israel was using the containment strategy re Gaza/Hamas prior to Oct 7
Russia v Ukraine and Israel v Gaza are incomparable, except that they're both wars. A comparable war would be other counter-terrorist warzones like Mosul or Raqqa which in fact have much higher civilian death rate than Gaza.
And that's even taking the UNWRA/ Gaza Health numbers at face value, which somehow indicate zero combatants killed in airstrikes.
You are confusing reported and estimated casualties. The reported civilian deaths in the nine-month Battle of Mosul were around 10k. A later estimate put the total number of civilian deaths to ~40k.
The numbers from Gaza are reported deaths, and nobody is seriously disputing them anymore. They are pretty consistent with the claims Israel is making. About two thirds of them should be civilians. That means a bit over 10k dead civilians after 2 months. True civilian casualties are likely higher, but the situation on the ground makes reliable estimates impossible.
I saw some of the incursion footage. How many of the hamas troops in the October 7 incursion were women? 0, from what I saw in the footage the only women involved were isreali victims getting kidnapped. Mostly of the incursion was done by males clearly in their 20s/30s. Perhaps few 19+, but I didn't see any kids participating in it either.
Sure, there might be some women helping out, but we can say it is mostly men, and 99% of the women killed, and most of the kids under 17 are victims of IDF's indiscriminate bombing, paid by our taxes.
If you want to defend war crimes, keep on going, but I feel sick how some goons in the tech community are justifying the killing by saying a '11 year old' is probably a hamas terrorist.
If you want to keep the discourse HN-worthy then delete the last para.
But btw apparently cctv footage showed women and children participating in Oct 7 massacre https://freebeacon.com/national-security/children-as-young-a... (not checked site credibility but it's not the only place mentioned). Not saying that I (or Israel) would airstrike young teen's house because they joined in an atrocity but just addressing your claim that zero women/kids involved...
Regardless the footage shows many who are just as likely 17 or 18 which are counted amongst the "children" count in the reported death tolls when it's entirely likely that are are plenty of 17 and 18yo (and younger) fighters in Gaza right now.
Women (on average) are much less likely to be combatants or pose a threat, are physically more vulnerable, and (as the only people who can bear children) are more important than men for preserving the future of humanity.
The reason people think only 10,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed is that is lowball number the UN made up to not offend and anger Russia and China.
It is estimated that 25,000-75,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed just in Mariupol and surrounding areas.
percentage wise, Absolutely yes. Ukraine is 40mil.
If the current rate was sustained in the Ukraine/russia, we would have seen at least 400k death rates. The estimates are 10-20x less. (between 10 and 20k)
You lost the plot, when even a goon like Putin is starting to look more human and conducting a massive war with less civilian casualties.
"Intentional mass murdering of civilians" is what Palestine did to start this war in the first place. So even if Israel were deliberately targeting civilians (there's no evidence for this) they would still be on the right side of this conflict.
bruh.... this is clearly 'faschist' type of argument. "They deserve it". The dehumanizing of a whole population is just sick.
Last times this happen in europe were: 1) WW2, 2) The massacres in the Yogoslavian wars, and especially in Sebrenica which was a clear ethnic cleansning/genocide and the war leaders ended up getting convicted for war crimes and crimes against the humanity.
Benjamin Netanyahu is on the way to become the next Milosevic, a war criminal.
What a blatant lie. The Siege of Mariupol alone is estimated to have killed somewhere between 25000 and 75000 civilians. The UN's fraudulent claim that "only 10,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed" is a blatant lie to keep China and Russia happy.
Any discussion about collateral damage should take population density into consideration. The population density of Ukraine is 63 per square kilometer. The population density of Gaza is 5500 per square kilometer.
Nope. There are isolated reports which are of doctors in Gaza saying they have a seen burns that they estimate to be white phosphorus but (a) it's their guess it could be from any number of munitions/explosives (b) phosphorus used legally in flares could cause injuries if they fall unspent (c) Gaza doctors like everyone under Hamas rule cannot speak freely to press.
The reports from Lebonon are isolated incurred that are highly inclusive too. Plus this accusation is used as part of the anti-Israel "genocide" narative that Israel simply wants to harm Gazans/Palestinians civilians, but why on earth even according to this beer particular view would it use white phosphorus as a munition in Lebanon?
We did give lots of aid to Ukraine and we somehow were able to have discussions about whether we should continue to do so, in a relatively civilized manner. [0]
Somehow, when it comes to Israel and/or Palestine, all nuance gets lost, my "side" is "right", and the other "side" is an unholy abomination, morally disgusting or some other thing without room for earnest discussion.
I'll let the rest of this thread speak for itself.
It's hard to look at the events of October 7 and not conclude that they are "unholy abomination, morally disgusting".
It may be that they were provoked by equally abominable behavior by the other side. I'll leave that to each person's conscience. But it's quite undeniable that at least one side committed unspeakable atrocities, and there's no merit in saying "Oh, there's no point in demonizing them just because they disagree".
This isn't a difference of opinion. There is actual violence going on, like real horror-movie stuff. It may be that both sides are demonic, but there's no way to make the case that neither side is.
I found the silence on HN around these events deafening when the Oct 7th attacks first happened (before Israeli retaliation). What is depicted here is tragic. There were many other tragic depictions then too. It seems fair to discuss both tragedies yet here only one instance is used as the “testbed” for HN discussions, from a generally biased source. I’m hoping we will find some nuance in these tough conversations and the ability to empathize as much as possible
> I found the silence on HN around these events deafening when the Oct 7th attacks first happened (before Israeli retaliation.
Tech Twitter is where the debate is at. I've been very surprised by some of the takes, to the say the least: Racist, fascist, supremacist undertones in all their glory, tweeted / retweeted ad nauseum (this one, for example, retweeted by Garry Tan https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1733687649414869349)
Whether by nature or nurture or some combination of the two, many people seem to lack compassion and empathy for those significantly outside of their personal bubble. If it was "their people" going through that suffering, they wouldn't stand for it, but as it is, it's someone else's problem. Living in the US, platitudes like "justice and liberty for all" don't hold up to the cold hard reality that it's that person's side versus everyone else. I wonder if we'll ever reach a critical mass of people that genuinely want everyone to thrive and suppress the bad actors that only think about what benefits them.
It shouldn't be jarring or even surprising that people won't talk about this specific subject, given what frequently happens to people who talk about this specific subject.
Could you please stop posting personal attacks and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Both Jews and Palestinian have legitimate grievances, going back over a hundred years, and they are so numerous that it seems pointless to enumerate them here. And these grievances have consistently been used by both sides to trivialize of deny the grievances of the other side. Its is the ultimate Oppression Olympics.
The problems are also much deeper than just "Netanyahu and Hamas". Not only does Netanyahu keep getting re-elected, these ultra hard-right Religious Zionist people have also gained quite a lot of ground, and these people are utterly bonkers, having expressed views that are nothing short of genocidal (even before the current war). And at the same time Hamas also has fairly wide-spread support among the people of Gaza, and Hamas has also expressed views that are nothing short of genocidal.
In short, it's a cultural problem, not a "Netanyahu and Hamas"-problem. Conflicts like this ends when people get tired of the violence and stop caring about who did what to who, and just want it to stop. This is why the Good Friday Accords in Northern Ireland have held, in spite of some opposition, as well as lingering grievances and even outright hatred, from both sides.
I'm not seeing this willingness here. The last time this was really present was the 90s, a hopeful period in general, and the Oslo accords between Rabin and Arafat seemed to be the start of the end of the conflict. It was not to be, and things didn't end well for either men: one got murdered by one of his own religious nutjobs and the other eventually got side-tracked by his own religious nutjobs, and things have only gotten worse since then.
I'm not hopeful for a resolution any time soon. Solutions for fundamental problems like "Gaza has been an open air prison for 15 years and we need to do something with these people" are barely being asked, and even the question itself is met with hostility by some.
Maybe someone still has a savegame from a few decades ago and we can try again? That seems the most plausible solution.
Mosab Hassan Yousef [1] in his book "Son of Hamas" described what it was like to be in Moscobiyeh [2].
"I have been sitting on this chair for three weeks," he said finally. "They let me sleep for four hours every week."
I was stunned. That was the last thing I wanted to hear. Another man told me he had been arrested about the same time I was. I guessed there were about twenty of us in the room.
Our talking was suddenly interrupted when someone struck me in the back of the head-hard. Pain shot through my skull, forcing me to blink back tears inside the hood.
"No talking!" a guard shouted.
After reading the book and about him in other places, I think he is very unlikely source of fakes.
I think that any nation might be in a state when it is semi-aware of such practices. It's when on those allegations many reply not by questioning them, but by telling how bad the other side is. In many cases after cooling off, the nation might start questions about questionable practices. The problem with Israel is that the country in in permanent state of war and I suspect (correct me) that many citizens are really semi-aware of all of this. I just hope that the moment when the questions are asked will come.
I have mixed feelings about this topic appearing on HN as I feel like folks are entrenched one way or the other and information isn't going to sway anyone. If this were a discussion we want to have here, this feels like a very bad article as by it's nature it's a one-sided subjective narrative with very little light to shed on the depth of the conflict. An interesting differentiator left unsaid in this article is that Israel released these guys upon investigation which by wartime standards is good behavior (in contrast to hostages kidnapped and held by Hamas still)
A thing that makes this conflict difficult to talk about is that the prevalence of coverage makes so many people take sides, while the depth of their understanding is basically just hearing the repetition of a word and applying the emotion of that word to the conflict. For example people hear "genocide in Gaza" and their opinion is simple: genocide is bad. It takes a little digging that most people don't bother to realize the population of Gaza has continued to grow exponentially [1] which is basically the opposite of genocide.
Sometimes reading about this conflict feels like seeing someone outraged at an oncologist because of what the radiation treatment is doing to a patient. Yes its bad, yes it's hurting them, but you can't really make sense of that unless you understand cancer and the greater danger that necessitates this kind of response.
> I feel like folks are entrenched one way or the other and information isn't going to sway anyone
People like to profess doom and hopelessness but I see productive conversations, in this thread and another recent one. Why, in the face of the evidence, is it important to believe and convince people that it's hopeless?
The trend to despair just pisses me off. Nobody ever taught me to embrace despair; I don't know about you. Let's get off our asses and make sh-t happen.
Except nobody does. How many people got off their asses, came to the region and took a look with their own eyes? How many went to work for the NSA in the Palestinian department to understand what's actually going on? How many have spoken to both sides with open eyes and open minds, gathered all the actual evidence and testimonies, systematically categorized them, confronted liars with their proven lies, and so on, and formed a concrete opinion based on actual proper research?
> It takes a little digging that most people don't bother to realize the population of Gaza has continued to grow exponentially [1] which is basically the opposite of genocide.
This is a very common and unfortunately completely irrelevant point that the far-right mentions when somebody brings up the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and does not show any "depth of understanding". By no internationally recognized definition of genocide is general population size considered. Something can be considered genocide even if the population grows in the end.
You portray a extremely obvious pro-Israel bias in this topic while thinking that you have a more nuanced opinion than others. Please stop misleading others.
And yet many Palestinians are genetically indistinguishable from many Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians. And for what it's worth Jewish and Christian and other non-hostile Palestinians.
Flagging this submission should lead to its removal. I'm very disappointed that HN allows political topics now. It's well-known that discussion of one-sided articles like this one doesn't lead to good discussions. It's clearly political, and, even worse, based on a one-sided submission pointing to Al Jazeera, which is driven by ideology and known for publishing way more radical articles in Arabic than in English. The best thing is to remove the whole submission.
In the absence of removing the thread, I feel morally obliged to represent the other side. According to a recent survey in the West Bank around 80% of all Palestinians in the West Bank support the October 7 attacks.[1] This may explain why the IDF is not always friendly towards Gaza prisoners and by default assumes they're Hamas members or sympathizers.
Some political topics have always been allowed on HN.
If you want to know how we think about this, there are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you look at some of those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a look.
We'd all like fair, subjective reporting from this region but with one side's track record of killing journalists, not only Al Jazeera's[1] but also Associated Press[2], Reuters[3], and many others[4] I guess we'll have to take what we can get.
On the contrary, nobody should allow Hamas to make things up or rely on unreliable and extremely biased sources like Al Jazeera, and take that "for what you get" without any critical examination because journalists have been killed in a combat zone. That's not how to obtain reliable information.
The real problem with political threads like this on HN is that HN has no way of muting individual persons. This is not good for anyone. Normally, I'd just mute your account and go on, that's how I deal with bad faith arguers on Reddit and it works great. Alas, HN doesn't have this possibility, so they really need to avoid flamebait topics like this one.
I'm sure you will. I somehow doubt you will also post stories about eye-witness accounts of the raping of hostages by Hamas, the ongoing hostage crisis, the killing and burning alive of families by Hamas terrorists, torturing civilians to death in front of their relatives, the shooting of parents in front of their children, or the kidnapping and killing of toddlers. According to recent polls, the vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and most of them in Gaza support these actions.
Anyway, if I find any illegal terrorist propaganda or calls to genocide in any of those threads, I know where to report it. At least German authorities react rather fast, and, if necessary, block all of HN. The rest of the EU has similar mechanisms.
So the logic here is, because 80% of a population living in an open air prison for several decades support attacks on the people oppressing them, they deserve to be tortured?
What a weird way to misinterpret what I've stated. Of course, I'm against torturing people, even if they support burning whole families alive, kidnapping children and elderly, raping women, shooting parents in front of their children, etc.
To quote HN's guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
That's not the complaint, though, me and many others are complaining that flagging that particular story seems to have been overridden manually, since it's almost certain that the story has been flagged very often. I surely have flagged it because of the above guideline, and many similar stories have been flagged and removed in the past. Luckily. HN is not the right medium for discussions of such topics. It's sad that Dang chose the most flamebait topic possible for an already dubious experiment.
HN moderators do often protect legitimate threads against flag-brigades. HN is the right medium for those topics circumstantially, as the rule says, and as reported by moderator. Please stop pretending to be an authority on rules out of your personal displeasure. I don't appreciate being called out for rule-breaking when moderation has clarified that it is acceptable per standards.
It's just the personal opinion of one moderator, contradicting published rules, and I disagree with the decision and your opinions about it. It's ruining everything I like about HN, and I don't want another social medium going down the drain after the /. debacle.
I just wanted to say that I hear you, I understand (at least partly) how you feel, and I'm sorry it landed this way. I don't think I agree that the decision "contradicted published rules", but insofar as I have to interpret the rules and in a case like this that is inevitably and intensely personal, you're not wrong to say "personal opinion of one moderator".
The experience of this thread was brutal, and of course it would have been so much easier to avoid it, but I don't think avoidance serves HN's purpose in the long run.
Anyhow, I appreciate your contributions to HN and I hope the positive will outweigh the negative in the long run.
I would strongly wish to urge you to continue to avoid contentious topics like ongoing wars or domestic US politics. These topics nearly destroyed /., if you've been there 2014-2016 you know what I mean, and it took them many users, great efforts, and changes in the moderation system to get it on track again. I left /. forever at this time, and many other did, too.
If you insist on highly controversial topics, you should at least provide ways for users to block other HN users and all of their submissions in a symmetric way (if X blocks Y, X and Y cannot see each others posts). To give you a sense of perspective, I discussed the current Israel/Palestine situation on Reddit, and had to (i) mute more than a dozen subreddits, (ii) block about a hundred users, and (iii) report half a dozen users. I received private messages by people I haven't even discussed with that literally threatened my family with rape and death. Of course, these accounts were removed, but the danger of leaking one's real identity and corresponding real-world consequences are still high on pseudonymous sites. Not everybody on HN is a tech billionaire who can afford private bodyguards.
For many people, me included, it is not a good solution either to just have an ability to hide a thread without voicing any opposition to the partly horrendous discussions in it. Although I want to leave Academia (and probably will), I'm currently working as a philosopher on moral decision-making and related topics in meta-ethics, and that means that I feel obliged to sometimes participate in such threads, if they exist. But my take is that, if possible, they should be avoided. There is no lack of social media where people can discuss politics and ongoing wars.
Slightly tangential to the discussion, but are there any readings you would recommend on moral decision making?
Background: I am(was?) a left-leaning israeli jew, and Oct7 and the subsequent IDF response make me feel as if I can hang up my moral compass on the wall as a non-functional vintage decoration.
Sorry, I saw that a bit late. I don't think I can recommend any reading for your particular conundrum. That falls into the area of general normative ethics. My area is formal axiology in metaethics, which concerns the structure and logic of "good" and "better than" comparisons. That area of inquiry is neutral about what values are the right ones, it concerns how to make decisions on the basis of given values, and what structural constraints these values have. Such a theory has normative components, but these are very abstract. For example, I have defended a theory of value structure according to which values come in different qualities; some values can outrank other values, which has far-reaching consequences for decision-making (e.g. expected utility can no longer be used, even if one is willing to endorse it otherwise).
As you can imagine, there are many approaches to normative ethics, international law, and the ethics of the rules of war. I'm by no means an expert in any of them and also do not believe that moral philosophers have authority regarding specific normative judgments. When I said I feel obliged to say something about the topic, I was more or less talking about a personal feeling of responsibility rather than claiming any moral authority. What I can recommend is to not be a consequentialist in moral evaluations of specific decisions, though consequentialist considerations are important in policy-making when statistical data is available. Motives and intentions matter a lot, and their roles are also codified in international law.
My personal take on the subject is that the military intervention in Gaza so far is morally justified. Deaths per bombings are low (not high, as some people claim) if you take victim numbers provided by Hamas and numbers about target bombings by IDF. Civilian:combatant casualty ratio is alleged to be around 2:1, which is also low for urban combat. But the main reasons why I believe it is justified are that there is no other alternative to put Hamas out of power, or at least substantially reduce the power of Al Qassam brigades, no past actions of Israel could in any morally relevant sense justify the Hamas terror attacks, I see no compelling evidence that the IDF or Israeli government wants to commit genocide (which, by definition, requires intention), Hamas endorse terrorism and self-portray as jihadists, there is an ongoing hostage crisis, Hamas has often attacked Israel in the past, and Israel has a right to prevent future attacks. Consequentialist counting of the number of victims plays only a minor role and, as far as I know, is also not very relevant from a legal point of view. Commensurability in the rules of war is relative to the military goals, and must be judged on a case by case basis. I've read and agree with how this is defined in the Geneva Conventions.
Neither that Palestinians are oppressed (or feel that way) nor whether some land belongs to them or not plays any substantial role in my personal moral assessment because these do not justify terrorism and hostage-taking.
Anyway, that's just my personal take on it. Sorry I'm unable to give you any good reading recommendation.
Thank you for the reply. I did learn a few new words such as "normative ethics" and consequentialism. I'll start with googling them and see where it leads me.
Although in the end only primary sources count in philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good resource for getting into specific topics.
I hear you and appreciate your comment. Here are some thoughts that come up in response.
HN's position on this (i.e., re political content on the site) has been stable for years now, hasn't destroyed HN yet, and IMO probably won't. Certainly we'll do all we can to avoid that. If you or anyone wants to know how we think about it, there are lots of past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
Most questions that people have about HN+politics are answered there; if a question isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is. A couple of starting points might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 (Nov 2019) or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902490 (April 2020).
I go back and forth on the killfile idea but my gut feeling is that it's not in HN's interest. For better or worse, it's in HN's DNA that we're all in one big room together. The site isn't sharded into silos the way others are. Here's a thing I wrote about that a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.
Decisions like this—e.g. about to what degree to allow political content, or whether to introduce block lists / killfiles—are risky because it's easy to see what's bad about the status quo (e.g. political flamewars are awful, having to see awful comments is awful), but much harder to see what's good about it and what one would lose by dropping that.
You're right about the downside of allowing a thread like this. It's painful and awful (to me too). And you're right that there are other places for people to talk about this. But what does it do to us as a community if we don't touch it at all? That's the question I'm sitting with. HN can't be the community it ought to be if all we do is disconnect from painful and divisive things; we become a lesser version of ourselves if we do that. (I wrote a bit more about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38658881.)
That does not mean we're going to let HN burn up with flamewars about this topic or any other. It needs to be carefully regulated (in the sense of calibrating, not ruling over), and we'll do our best. For example that's why I didn't turn off the flags on a different post last night (more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527).
I suspect a very large number of people are too smart to speak up, but also resentful of the forces that work to prevent actual nuanced dialogue. That's certainly the sentiment in my bubble.
As somebody who isn't fond of the idea of an ethnostate and sees atrocities coming from all of the actors here, I don't feel comfortable speaking up due to the lack of nuance in public forums.
I hear you. While reading your comment, I had the thought "'atrocities coming from all of the actors'? Are you saying they're equally bad?" Of course, that's not what you said and there are far better responses if one is concerned about debating the relative moral standings of Israel and Hamas. It was more of a kneejerk reaction, and I quickly dismissed that from rational consideration, but the fact that I thought it nonetheless (and, in a different world, just replied with that) is a bit unsettling. Especially when we can't be certain what's a truth or lie when it comes to coverage of this conflict, it's far too easy to lose sight of the nuance.
While I don't deny many of the atrocities that the Israeli government seems to be doing, it's only part of what's going on. I support Israel withdrawing from Gaza (aside from providing aid) and focusing on actual defense, but Hamas will still be active. There's also more work that has to be done in both Israel and Gaza. It's not just a one-and-done situation that's as simple as "hey Israel, stop doing the bad thing".
Yes there should be a more substantial ask and price to pay for committing a Holocaust, just as Nazi Germany was dismantled, we in tech should be demanding of a ceasefire AND the dismantling of the Holocausting state of Israel.
What would dismantling of Israel entail? I think Israel should be reformed to accept Palestinians and whatnot, but dismantling seems like a far stronger word.
This is my basic first draft proposal (nobody asked me, i know) for a dual-state solution as a fallback if a full single Palestinian state cannot be achieved (either case has 99% of the same suggestions from my perspective, Palestine from the river to the Sea with equal rights for all does not necessitate violence) :
If only the world in general could be more peaceable and not have separate states. Many of the elements could stand to be adopted in general. As it is, your plan mostly seems good, although I'm doubtful about how "anti-extremism" and "de-Zionification" classes would manifest in practice, and "single economy" seems really weird and chafing.
What is that supposed to mean? Many people want equal rights and justice for everyone. What I'm doubting is whether your particular ideas for achieving that are appropriate. Good intentions alone don't solve problems. Feel free to explain, or don't if you don't want to, but there's no point in being snarky about it.
I don't know what to tell you except fighting against something that is wrong but widespread and established cannot be comfortable.
There's nothing really new here. It was not comfortable to be a e.g. civil rights activist in the US during segregation, or a dissident in the eastern block. The question is, what is right and what is wrong. You either accept wrong out of comfort as many people did in the past or reject it.
That's not the point that GP is making. Rather, discussing these kinds of topics tends to produce a lot of low quality and emotionally charged discussion that makes it dubious whether one should've engaged in the first place.
> I suspect a very large number of people are too smart to speak up, but also resentful of the forces that work to prevent actual nuanced dialogue. That's certainly the sentiment in my bubble.
There is some of that, and a mainstream "which side are you on" attitude. I previously wrote that the US could sit this one out. Provide humanitarian aid only, provide no military aid, and try to pressure both sides into not killing each other in large numbers. Which is what most of the rest of the world is doing.[1]
I’m actually really glad to see that this is the first Israeli conflict where its actually easy to keep our jobs, its been awkward for decades in the US on this one topic.
The needle needed to move to show where that soft power has waned and where it really stands
To show that we never agreed about labeling everything antisemitism in an antiquated 20th century way, when everyone involved are semites
Every call for a statement was met with laughter, every kneejerk lobbing of the word antisemitism was met with more laughter. Every liberal Jewish American has to reconcile the perception we’ve all had of their of their pride and joy country their whole lives, and now has to consider being a Trump supporter after all that social justice work, c’mon that’s admittedly hilarious.
I get that most of this everyone with ties to this conflict feeling isolated and traumatized. Along with an algorithm fueled echo chamber where they only see the other side getting attention and empathy, no matter which side that is. These are problems for a therapist.
Regardless, that needle needed to move. I dont agree with how it did, Hamas was accurate in noticing that it would move.
For balance, Hamas is already on the sanctions list. Israeli leadership and military and settlers and financiers should be too. I dont think every comment needs every disclaimer.
Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. We have to ban accounts that keep doing this, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The IDF actually can avoid the vast majority of civilian casualties - they are the ones choosing to drop a huge number of bombs. They can do their job of defending Israel by actually protecting the border, and go after Hamas in a much slower & more precise way.
> They can do their job of defending Israel by actually protecting the border
They can't. Hamas launched thousands of rockets on October 7th, and Israel has no way of stopping something like that again short of what they're doing now, a massive bombing campaign and land invasion to take out as much of Hamas' built-up stockpiles and war infrastructure as possible.
There is no workable defense here that doesn't require significant offense.
> They can't. Hamas launched thousands of rockets on October 7th, and Israel has no way of stopping something like that again
The Iron Dome stopped pretty much all the rockets
What didn’t stop Hamas on Oct 7th was Israel not paying attention to their own intelligence and the tips of neighboring countries, as well as an insanely slow response time
If they wanted to, they could definitely only defend themselves
They could also stop the illegal settlers and occupation in the West Bank (instead of using the IDF to support them)
And they could make an actual effort in working towards peace
But instead Israel has pretty much created this situation and has a president openly calling for the extermination of Palestinians (re: Amalek)
> The Iron Dome stopped pretty much all the rockets
The Iron Dome wasn't and isn't capable of stopping thousands of rockets. Also, each Iron Dome interceptor costs around $100k whereas each Hamas rocket costs only a few hundred dollars. It simply doesn't pencil out; Hamas can spend Israel down this way.
But the whole idea that Hamas can shoot rockets at Israeli civilian areas with impunity by the thousands whenever it wants, and all Israel is allowed to do is merely attempt to shoot down some of the rockets, is utterly absurd. It's a fantasy world. In the real world, if you wage war like that, you get struck back, and that's exactly what Israel is doing.
You don't seem to understand what war is, or how and why it is fought. What is currently going on is a WAR between Israel and Hamas, and it's absurd to expect one of the combatants to unilaterally disarm themselves while still under attack. That isn't how war works or how it has ever worked.
You said Israel can’t defend itself, it clearly can, even if it’s expensive to them
But instead, for whatever reasons, it’s choosing to attack
To me it’s clear the end goal of their attacks is not peace but rather domination and eviction
Also, this is not a war. This a genocidal massacre brought on by Israel on the Palestinians, and has been going on for decades all over that area. Gaza is just the main focus right now, but they are still slaughtering people in the West Bank
Israel has always chosen that path, and they probably feel it’s served them well, they’ve gained plenty of land. But they also kept the conflict alive, including Netanyahu and his party explicitly supporting Hamas to undermine peaceful Palestinian political movements
This reply just restates all the same falsehoods and doesn't actually address any point in my comment. You don't understand the limitations of Iron Dome, you don't understand the nature of defense (it means killing the people launching rockets at you, not merely shooting down some of the rockets in perpetuity while some get through and kill your civilians), and you don't understand the nature of war.
Let's try a really simple metaphor. I'm repeatedly shooting at you. I'm a shitty marksman, so many of my shots miss, and you're wearing body armor, so some of the shots that do hit you don't penetrate. But I'm going to keep shooting until you're dead. Are you going to just stand there and let me take shot after shot after shot until one connects with your flesh, or are you going to do something about it first? Oh, and you're holding a much better and more accurate gun than I am, and I'm unarmored. You can drop me with a single shot at any time.
> What didn’t stop Hamas on Oct 7th was Israel not paying attention to their own intelligence and the tips of neighboring countries, as well as an insanely slow response time.
Wait, you can't possibly be blaming October 7th partially on Israel's insanely slow response time, can you? What is that sentence even supposed to mean?
It's a ground invasion in which they tell civilians to evacuate beforehand. How much slower and more precise do you want them to get, given that Hamas is maybe 10% of the population (so their supporter base is clearly much larger) and there's no clear distinction between fighters and the rest deliberately? It's hard to imagine specifics.
Israel can't simply let them launch rockets forever. Iron Dome isn't 100% effective and more importantly there's a massive, orders of magnitude cost differential between attack and defense. Eventually Israel would run out of intercepter rockets (or the ability to afford them), and then Hamas can simply bomb Israel at will.
> And international law also prohibits human shields and launching rockets from hospitals but guess you missed that one.
No, I didn't.
But no one here was arguing that Hamas should get credit for doing more than is minimally necessary without actually providing any reason to believe that, whereas they have for Israel.
> Laws only get brought up when talking about Israel huh?
Only Israel's defenders on HN call for it to get a clap on the back for the unusual morality and restraint of its actions.
The vast majority civilians are getting killed & buried alive due to the aerial bombings where the IDF is trying to assassinate members of Hamas - they obviously don't give any warnings for such strikes.
And the current offensive isn't a response to the rockets, which have been fired for years, but to the Hamas ground invasion, which the IDF should have been prepared for 24/7 & could have completely defeated.
I certainly don't excuse Hamas - they are a despicable & evil terrorist organisation - and more evil than the IDF. This is quite obvious and uncontroversial though, so people often don't bother pointing this out.
If you launch a rocket from your kitchen on the 12th floor, I am allowed to defend myself, but not by flattening the entire building and killing a hundred innocent children, when you have probably gone to another building or tunnel.
There are many reporters in Gaza who are documenting the thousands of dead & injured children..
It's hard to argue Israel "cant avoid civilians" when 40% of Gaza's housing is rubble. Israel's airstrikes aren't "calculated" if they calculate everything as a legitimate target
By the end of the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire had the largest Jewish population in the world, as it provided a principal place of refuge for Jews driven out of Western Europe by massacres and persecution.
Your frame of reference includes the last 70 years, but not the 1880 years prior starting from 70 CE?
It's an ugly trade-off military commanders have to consider. How many civilians aligned with the enemy you are willing to kill as collateral damage to avoid losing one of your own soldiers?
There are always many ways of reaching your military objectives. For example, you could launch an air strike or an infantry assault. Some are more effective than others. Some cause more collateral damage. And with some, you risk higher casualties.
My political awareness was forged by the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the American response.
The core lesson: the point of a terrorist attack is to trigger an over reaction. America wildly over reacted and became fundamentally hostile to Arab and Muslim people.
This reaction led to some of the most successful recruiting of radicals in generations.
Israel's response to this crisis seems to have failed to learn from that mistake.
Israel's response tends to stem from a history of oppression which is where it gets touchy. Jewish have not exactly been treated well for most of the 20th century. Not saying that is a reason to invoke that upon someone else, but it tends to be where most thoughts come from. A sense of if we don't do something we'll lose "our" home.
That’s an interesting parallel, Gazan’s response is also borne of a history of oppression. Living with food insecurity, being an intergenerational refugee unable to return to home a few miles away, watching family members harmed, etc seems to motivate a lot of Palestinian behavior.
"being an intergenerational refugee" is one of the most absurd problems that exist in this conflict. Nobody should be a refugee just because their grandparents were. They should be plain citizens of whatever region they were born in.
If we extrapolate this stance to other past conflicts, we'd have today tens of millions of German "intergenerational" refugees sitting in Germany and waiting for their return to their home a few miles away, across the Oder river.
The idea that every nation needs a state (and every state exists to serve one nation) is part of the absurdity! It's what got us into this mess in the first place—the Jews needed a state of their own because the rest of us couldn't stand to let them make their home near us.
The problem of intergenerational refugees will not be solved by carving out a new state and shipping everyone back there.
Their ancestors lost their homes when they needlessly started, and then lost, a war against people who owned land outright and others who moved onto the land only after the UN divided it and gave a vast proportion of it to Jordan, and part to Israel… ancestors who also abandoned their land after the war defeat on the advice of their warlike leaders. The ones who stayed behind became Israeli (Arab muslims, Christians, etc.) and kept their land as long as they held valid documented title to it, and many of those who made that move (or whose parents did) say they would prefer to live under Israeli rule versus PA rule. The Youtuber TravelinIsrael has some good videos on history about this.
Obviously there are also modern alleged losses of land and homes but each case has its own details. In some, Israelis (often settlers) are clearly in the wrong, but in others, it is less clear and more disputed than common rhetoric about “oppression” and “occupation” would imply.
> moved onto the land only after the UN divided it
Why should people who have lived in an area for generations heed the dictates of nations thousands of miles away?
> ancestors who also abandoned their land after the war defeat on the advice of their warlike leaders.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. A full accounting won't fit in an HN comment, but it's beyond question that many Palestinians were expelled at gunpoint from homes they had been living in for generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_fro...
Personally, I would recommend the series "Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem" [0]. The guy behind it is a former US DoD contractor who worked for many years with the IDF, friends with Israeli soldiers, etc, but who is also married to a woman with Palestinian relatives. It's extremely well-researched, and explains the motivations of all the players without exculpating any side.
> beyond question that many Palestinians were expelled at gunpoint from homes
You'd surprised how many out right reject this ever happened, including some prominent "Zionists" in tech. There's some alternate reality that some of us were simply not part of, but yet find ourselves with them in this shared reality.
It's a matter of public record and well articulated by Ilan Pappé at the very least, that the Zionists were intent on capturing Palestine for themselves and removing everyone they could by any means necessary. If they could buy out the properties they would, but as they faced mounting resistance they resorted to violence. Ben-Gurion and his ilk were criminals even if lionized
On the other hand, I prefer that to someone who just pretends to be even handed.
For the record, I listen to the viewpoints of plenty of people on the other side, as well. But I'm afraid I find their narrative doesn't hang together.
I would recommend again the series I linked in my previous comment. The series creator says at one point, that had he been born a Jew, he would have been a hardcore Zionist; conversely, had he been born a Palestinian, he would have been a hardcore supporter of that side. One of the things the series does so well is, instead of presenting the history as a debate between two camps that needs to have a winner and loser, it tells the story. For all the major players in the story, it tells you not only what they did, but why they did it, and how they came to believe what they believe. And then it asks you what you would have done in their situation. After you've stared that question in the face, it's impossible to really hate either side IMO.
It's a long series, many hours of listening, but absolutely worth every second. Hooked me from the first few minutes. You won't regret it!
You are correct, in addition to those who decided to abandon their land, there are others who were expelled because their side started a war they lost, in which Israel captured vast amounts of territory, and expelled people on the losing side from that territory in some cases. As you yourself said, a full accounting won't fit; there's a lot more that can be said about history here.
The podcast person married into a Palestinian family thinks that Israel's founding consisted of Jews coming from Europe. Certainly many Jews came from Europe but many already lived in their homeland of Israel decades or more before modern Israel was founded, and many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands came from nearby Arab countries, where true actual genocide against them was underway and was carried through (you can count the results today in the demographics of nearby countries as compared to prior to the many pograms). Golda Meir herself was Palestinian.
There are flaws on both sides. But I'll take the side who doesn't r**e with family members cheering them on. Sickening. Of course, saying that they haven't had an easy time would be a huge understatement. Some of it is self inflicted, starting wars and conflicts, but they also have been lied to about the most fundamental things, and about history. And so I would take everything in that podcast with a grain of salt, especially given that it only took reading the summary of Episode 1 to find wild distortions.
"Their ancestors lost their homes when they needlessly started, and then lost, a war" - the Palestinian villagers did not start any wars - the war was started by the rulers of neighboring states...
That explains what happened in 50s and 60s. Leveling Gaza in 2023 doesn't fall in that category, Hamas never had the power to do anything about Israel's existence as a state.
From the perspective of Israel's defense forces, Hamas doesn't have that power because Israel responds the way it does. I'd imagine that for many in Israel the lesson of the 60s is that if given an opening all of their neighbors will attack, so Israel cannot ever be seen as responding lukewarmly to an attack, even one by a party that couldn't destroy them singlehandedly.
(I'm not arguing that this position is correct, just trying to explain another possible perspective.)
That's the problem, isn't it? If you put yourself in the shoes of either side, you can see how they have very good reason to do what they do (except Israelian settlement policies, those basically amount to borderline ethnic cleansing, and force the IDF to move in after the fact, but that's a different beast).
And since both sides are "right", there is no way this can end without outside intervention. An intervention that won't come, becaues nobody who could intervene is neutral enough, nor willing to be drawn into this.
I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics.
You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back.
The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back.
That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight.
If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!"
If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians.
In conclusion:
Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it.
Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.
The armed struggle hasn't done them any favours, yes. Neither has peace (Oslo).
> The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back.
Hamas agreed to 1967 borders back in 2017. PLO has long given up armed struggle.
> If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!"
A typical racist characterisation.
Arab male or female is continually fair game to either poke fun at, or more seriously, be confined to and judged by a representation that is either inherently bad, angry, irrational or stupid, misogynistic or repressed, exotic or lascivious.
The peace was immediately undermined by groups who did not want to stop fighting. Look, the wikipedia article on the 1996 palestinian general election following the accords literally says, quote:
The Islamist Hamas, Fatah's main rival, refused to participate in the election; they felt that doing so would lend legitimacy to the PNA, which was created out of *what they called unacceptable negotiations and compromises with Israel.* [0]
> ["Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" is] A typical racist characterisation.
This is well documented history, see above for one such example. I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, but I am not interested in debating that view here, if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it.
> You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric.
Of course not, they want their stuff back. I'm pointing out that they have consistently chosen a way of going about it that is actually preventing them from getting what they want.
Again, this is based purely on the actual history of the past 60 years where every Palestinian government has reverted to allowing anti-Israel violence because the public will not allow criticism of the fight to get their stuff back. As an example, the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash [1]
Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable. Last I checked, '67 borders, reparations, and a right of return for some small percentage of the refugees, and they are good?
> the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash
If one were in Pal shoes, pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might. This Haaretz article explains their possible psychological state after close to 3 decades of humiliation: https://archive.is/rLq02
I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected because Palestinians began a wave of suicide bombings right before the Israeli elections, which swayed their electorate towards a hard-liner. I.e. the violent Palestinian groups could not be controlled by the peaceful-er ones, and their terrorism ended up being counter-productive.
> Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable.
I am making no value judgements about their goals. I am asserting that their method for achieving those goals is not rational insofar as it is counterproductive.
> pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might
Being really emotional doesn't make your decisions rational. I'm not telling Palestinians to love their enemies. I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights.
> I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected...
Agree, and his 2 decades led to apartheid, continued violation of Oslo, and flirting dangerously with the Temple Mount status quo... culminating in 7 Oct. Which is why I pointed out it was wrong to call out Pals as unreasonable and irrational (a typical stereotype, co-opted by the IDF https://archive.is/P4PyJ) when the fault is with both the sides.
(The Jordanian King shouldn't have endorsed Bibi at the time he did, which apparently tipped polls in his favour against Peres)
> asserting that their method for achieving those goals... I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights
True. The reason why Israeli far-right loves propping up Hamas. The extremists on the either side feed on each other. Remains to be seen what comes after the current situation. Sincerely hope 67 borders and it is done. Have a feeling West Bank and E Jerusalem settlers and their billionaire American donors won't like it.
And then there was Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister who actually wanted peace. He was assassinated. Guess what, the assassins were right wing Israelis and not Palatinians or Hamas.
Whether the Israeli's decisions are reasonable is a completely separate topic, and I think the answer is less clear.
Because Palestine has no bargaining chips, a peace deal will involve Israel making unilateral concessions to Palestine, i.e. charity. Israel will relinquish territory where it currently is the de-facto owner, and agree to put new limits on its treatment of the Palestinians. Palestine will continue to receive a great deal of international aid which it could use to rebuild quite quickly if at peace, and they could easily choose to rebuild into a more credible threat to Israel.
In exchange, Israel gets:
Maybe improved relations with their Arab neighbors. (It could also make things worse; their neighbors may become more openly hostile if their "arm the Palestinians against Israel" strategy is taken off the table)
Slightly improved international relations because the settlements Israel keeps would be legitimized.
Maybe a reduction in terrorism (assuming the Palestinian peace-making faction retains enough power to enforce this).
Maybe a reduction in defense costs (Israel still needs to maintain a large defense force because it is surrounded by potentially hostile countries).
Is that trade worth it for Israel? Its not obvious, and depends on how likely you think the positive outcomes are. This is reflected in their domestic politics, Israelis have supported both doves and hawks over the past 60 years depending on how likely they think a positive peace is, which largely depended on Palestinian behavior.
So while I don't think its worth assassinating people over, I do think reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the appropriateness of peace deals from the Israeli perspective.
I saw an interview a while ago of an Israeli father who lost his kid in one of the previous wars, and who now works a Palestinian father, who also lost his kid, in order to find a peaceful solution. He confirmed your point by saying, I paraphrase, "we are doomed to live share this land together, or the graveyard under it".
I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.
Sadly, both have to be willing to forgive for option 3 to work, so even if one side would be willing to, they are stuck unless the other side is also willing.
I think that what’s going on in the minds of those calling the shots on Israel’s side (or at least most of them) is: they’re not trying to level Gaza. They’re trying to fight a war against Hamas, and Hamas is fighting from positions in cities that are often literally on the grounds of or inside what ought to be protected civilian sites: hospitals, mosques, etc. And they are surely making what seems a straightforward tactical calculation: they could send infantry in to try to minimize civilian casualties at enormous cost to their infantry, or they could use their massively superior firepower to just destroy the Hamas positions from a distance.
And the Israeli command feels the need to fight on the ground in the first place because Hamas is holding obviously innocent hostages and shooting militarily-useless but nonetheless quite dangerous explosive-filled rockets over the border. Hamas is goading them very effectively. If Israel could magically snap its fingers to destroy Hamas, get rid of all of Hamas’ weapons, and leave Gazan civilians, buildings and infrastructure alone, of course they would!
One might ask why Hamas is doing any of the above. I don’t think Hamas is at all on the side of the residents of Gaza. Their strategy seems much better explained by some rather different goals: improving their own status in the world, raising money, making a really big show, weakening Israel, seeming and feeling important, and recruiting more militant members. I think that every Gazan civilian injury and death is in Hamas’ favor. Israel making itself look bad is in Hamas’ favor. More Gazans who hate Israel and feel hopeless and marginalized is in Hamas’ favor. So of course Hamas wants to keep holding hostages and randomly blowing stuff up in Israel.
To be clear: I do not think Israel is making an ethically or strategically appropriate decision here. But I understand where they’re coming from.
And I don’t think Hamas is making the right decisions either, ethically or strategically, at least if the goal is making a good, safe life for residents of Gaza.
Politically, Hamas has something in common with Nethanyahus government: the urge to stay in power. From that perspective, at least for now, both sides, Israels politicak leadership and Hamas leadership, have achieved their goal.
Another thing both have in common: they don't give a fuck about the price other people have to pay in order to achieve that goal.
Not sure what that has to do with it. The current conflict between Palsetinians and Israel roots back to the foubdation of Israel as a state after WW2. Which I get, jews came pretty close to extinction, and arguably not a lot of people actually cared about that. Hence the need for a state of their own.
80 years and a bunch of wars, insurgencies, counter-insurgencies, terror and air campaigns later, interseded with a handful of peace initiatives, the situation is truely FUBAR. I am not convinced so that leveling Gaza actually does a lot to solve that problem.
If the UN was a properly working organization, it would have intervened long ago to force a ceasefire. But we all know that only applies to very poor countries with no economic or political relevance.
I am sad and angry that the US was the sole vetoer of the most recent attempt. Also sad that Israel's vengeful assault on the people of Gaza is enabled and funded by the US.
To misquote Bryan Cantrill, one should not make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Netanyahu.
When a nationalist politician like him is faced with an event like this, long-term international diplomacy considerations barely enter the picture.
The violence just comforted him in his previous worldviews, all he saw was that his nationalistic policies were justified and the only viable answer was to be even more of a nationalist.
I don't see any reality where he didn't have the most violent response he could get away with.
If there as an election tomorrow in Israel, do you think the new leader would be against war? Like it or not, Hamas' actions have prompted a response from the Israeli people, a different leader wouldn't change that sentiment.
True, Israeli votes are the only votes that have had, and can have, any material effect there. They have voted for Netanyahu reliably for years, so the present situation, Hamas included, is what they have, collectively, chosen. Hamas has always been Netanyahu's staunchest political ally. If Israeli voters ever choose differently, change might be possible. Until then, things will be reliably more of the same.
Netanyahu has in fact won less than 50% of the votes but due to a technicality managed to assemble a coalition with other parties that amounted to 64 of 120 seats in parliament (similar to Bush Jr. and Trump having won US elections despite winning less than 50% of the votes due to the electoral college). The latest polls show Netanyahu and his government with a less than 30% approval rating, this was hardly a slam dunk victory (and in fact Netanyahu replaced another prime minister who ruled between his terms when he barely won the November 2022 elections).
It remains the US's collective fault that Bush minor and Trump got into office on minority votes. We know how to fix the electoral system, and numerous states have chosen to implement that fix, so it just waits on a few more states to sign on.
What you say offers more hope than I had imagined possible.
Isreali-Palestinian history didn't begin on October 7th. The sentiment isn't a creation of that event, though obviously the attack influenced it. The sentiment is also partly a creation of years of right-wing politics and an ineffectual opposition.
It's an issue in many countries, as we (even on HN) throw humanitarianism away, and the study of it, we will of course lose quite a lot. What replaces it?
My political awareness was forged by participating in the Iraq war on the US side after falling for the massive propaganda before. I've literally never been the same person since, and have spent most of my waking free hours in between the jobs I can barely hold down for my PTSD trying to understand the details behind the global geopolitical situation.
The truth is this is likely just a continuation of the same playbook, and until one understands the true reasons behind the GWOT one will not be able to understand why it seems those "mistakes" haven't been learned from. When I started asking Cui Bono about Iraq (I did not participate in Afghanistan) and the various real results of the war I keep returning to Israel. For example, I know a person who was in the Green Zone when an Iraqi general came and said "I have 40k military men about to have no job, what do you want to do with them, please hire them." and the top-down directive that every boot-on-the-ground with half a brain knew would result in majorly increased chaos was to tell them to f-off! My conclusion after tons of reading is that balkanization was part of the intention as part of prepping for Oded Yinon. (I won't even start on the various secret societies (ancient mystery religions) obsession with Solomons temple and rebuilding the third temple, which would require the destruction of Al Aqsa)
Then as I started truly analyzing 9/11 and doing what the intel bubbas call "threat finance", I keep ending up at deep state actors heavily tied to Israel (and the UK) even within my (US) government. For an example that is even mirrored in this recent escalation, are indicators of pre-knowledge via trading that occurred prior. This happened on 9/11 (by a firm formerly chaired by AB Buzzy Krongard, A.B. Brown, acquired by Banker's Trust turned Banker's Trust-AB Brown) and before 10/7, and in a way that is mathematically provable to be major outliers.
My point is that there are much deeper things going on that surface analysis will fail to provide understanding for. If I went into further detail, I would for sure be seen as a "crazy conspiracy theorist"...
I riff on Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean "You'd best start believing in ghost stories, because you're in one!"
There was evidence that some folks knew of this attack and traded against it too. The official sources for the 9/11 stuff claim that the evidence for it there was circumstantial, but I still don’t believe it.
With 9/11 the 28 pages shows that the Saudis are almost certainly the ones responsible for the attack but due to oil we simply ignore it and sweep it under the rug.
The US is institutionally unable to bring those responsible for terrorism to justice.
> the point of a terrorist attack is to trigger an over reaction
I don't agree with that at all, the point of a terrorist attack is to continue a war of attrition. An overreaction is actually the worst thing that can happen to terrorists: It nullifies their attempt to win via small incremental attritional steps. The reason why the US didn't win the war against terror is because it didn't attack the core ideology that causes the terror. For example in their fight against Nazi ideology in post war Germany the US "overreacted" hard and made sure that Germany was forced to make the nazi ideology wholly illegal and every depiction of a nazi symbol in public illegal.
> US "overreacted" hard and made sure that Germany was forced to make the nazi ideology wholly illegal and every depiction of a nazi symbol in public illegal.
The US also poured a massive fortune into rebuilding the West German economy and society, to ensure it wouldn't fall to communism. Violence and repression alone would not have worked.
Israel lives by the border of Gaza, right next to the terrorists that forged the October 7th attack.
Meanwhile, the US had no border with the belligerent terrorist organization's societies (Iraq, Syria, ME).
Would the US allow a terrorist organization that both DECLARES, has CAPABILITIES to, and HAS DEMONSTRATED INTENT to harm its citizens to live by its borders, and threaten with continued assaults? hell no.
AFAIK cartel gang members by the border of US aren't taught from young age that all US citizens are demons that stole something that belongs to them, and that their goal in life is to kill as many americans as possible.
They also don't obtain and launch thousands of rockets at US cities, or go on 3,000-men raid of US cities by the border for the main objective of killing, hurting, kidnapping and instilling fear into US citizens.
The comparison of cartels to terrorist militias like Hamas is ridiculous and reveals ignorance.
As I explained in the pinned comment at the top (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662) and my other posts in this thread, comments in this thread must not be in the spirit of battle, but rather of something more spacious within ourselves. It's not always possible to find that (for many legitimate reasons), but in that case it's best to refrain from posting until one can.
I'm afraid your comments in this thread are crossing out of that and back in to the spirit of battle. This is 100% understandable and I get it, but we need something else in this discussion.
The same goes for some of the commenters arguing against your position—my moderation point here is certainly not about agreeing with them and disagreeing with you (I add this because I know it can all too easily feel that way).
If Mexico-based cartels killed 1000 Americans and kidnapped 200, the US would send armed forces into Mexico in a heartbeat, probably with the support of the Mexican government.
Of course the cartels don't do that, though, because their goal isn't to murder Americans and destroy America.
And the US does operate closely with Mexican forces to root them out. In addition, the govt in Mexico is cooperative. If that is not the case, I think we’ll see a much more hostile response.
How? The cartels want to make money through illegal means, they don't want to destroy America. The cartels studiously avoid killing Americans. When they do kill Americans, the leadership either kills the members who killed Americans or turns them in, e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gulf-cartel-apologizes-...
This is a common, but very flawed misunderstanding of the situation in Israel, by analogizing it to 9/11. (Many Israelis were pushing this narrative at the start of this, btw, but that doesn't make it true.)
This wasn't just a terror attack, like 9/11 was. It was an invasion. Thousands of armed militants breached the border and invaded Israel, then killed more than a thousand Israelis. The militants were inside Israel for a few days after. In addition to the ground invasion, Hamas shot rockets into Israel, and has continues to shoot rockets at Israel this entire time.
This wasn't a terror attack. It was an invasion and a declaration of war.
In addition to all of that, for the first few weeks after this invasion, it was very unclear whether this would lead to a wider, joint attack by other forces as well. It is very hard for people in the US, and for most Westerners, to really understand what it's like to be afraid of losing a war. Israel probably would've survived even if this war turned into a combined attack by not just Hamas, but by Hezbollah and possibly even others. (Who, btw, are also shooting at Israel every day, just not doing it enough to really be considered another combatant.)
The response to 9/11 was maybe an overreaction. But 9/11 was not a real threat to the US , and this was fairly clear. This is an entirely different situation - there is a sworn enemy of Israel on its borders, proving they have the capability to kill thousands of citizens, and claiming they're going to do this over and over. That's a situation that a country can't live with, which is why Israel's reaction is not an overreaction - it's what any country on earth would do.
Notes:
1. This doesn't mean that everything Israel does is ok - there are different ways of prosecuting a war, Israel could still be doing it in a very immoral way and be consistent with everything I said above (I don't think that's true, but it's orthogonal to my point in this comment).
2. This comment also doesn't say anything about whether or not Hamas is "justified" in invading Israel, nor does it claim that "history started on October 7th" or anything silly like that. Of course there's context to this whole situation. (It should be needless to say but I'll say it anyway - there is no excuse for Hamas's deliberate targeting of civilians, and no excuse for the slaughter they committed. Still, that's also orthogonal to the point I'm making in this comment.)
> it was very unclear whether this would lead to a wider, joint attack by other forces as well
I agree that it's easy to discuss rationally from the outside.
Hamas is not a threat to Israeli existence. Without extensive and far superior outside help, Hamas could not hold a square meter of Israeli (non-Gazan) territory).
Do you have insight into why Israelis talk about an "existential" war? I'm not dismissing their feelings - WTF do I know? - but I think it goes beyond expected overreaction and the exaggerations of a few fringe figures.
(And obviously, existential or not, Israelis will not want to experience future attacks like this Oct 7.)
Israel is surrounded by nations which want to see Israel destroyed, and which have banded together in the past to attempt exactly that (e.g. the Yom Kippur War in 1973). If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.
The most powerful neighbor, part of the Yom Kippur War, is Egypt, which in 1979 signed a peace treaty that nobody thinks they will violate. Jordan is a peaceful, cooperative neighbor. Lebanon is not capable but Hezbollah, in southern Lebanonon, is dangerous, of course - too dangerous for Israel to attack, probably, but to invade Israel and take territory? That is much different (and I don't know). Syria has just been through a long civil war. I'm not sure I see much potential at the moment.
Also, the US would openly fight on Israel's side.
But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk.
> If Israel fails to retaliate against aggression forcefully enough it could embolden the surrounding nations enough to form a new coalition and attack.
And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple. Escalation is generally considered a bad, amateur move in international relations. The trick is to accomplish your aim (deterrence) without creating a bigger problem. That's how you end up in major wars.
> But second, it's easy to say, 'it's probably fine' from the outside, when your neck and your future isn't at risk.
Yeah this was basically going to be my response to the first part of your response. Israel wants to be around for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. You can't accept existential risk, even if small, if that's your goal.
> And too much force could provoke them. It's not that simple.
I agree. My comment was just trying to look at the question of why the initial invasion by Hamas was seen as an existential threat great enough to justify an all out counterattack. I don't know how to answer when enough is enough, and I could easily believe that Israel isn't even considering that question out of rage.
The damage to Israel's international reputation could outweigh any security it gains through deterrence - the fact that Hamas hasn't freed their hostages or stopped firing rockets suggests that they don't want Israel to stop fighting for this reason
For one, during this war Israel has been fired upon from Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, with Iran pulling many of the strings behind the scenes. The combined strength of these countries is definitely an existential threat.
Aside from that, the borders with Gaza and Lebanon are unlivable. More than 100,000 Israelis are displaced from their homes.
The international community does not care that Hamas is continuously committing war crimes, with respect to hostages, firing rockets at civilian population centers, and using human shields. They do not care that Hezbollah is violating multiple UN security council resolutions, including first and foremost 1701. They do not care that Yemen is firing cruise missiles at Israel from 1500 miles away and hijacking freighters with loose or no ties to Israel.
All the world cares about is how many rockets you need to store and how many militants you need to harbor to qualify as a legitimate target for the IDF.
> Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, with Iran pulling many of the strings behind the scenes. The combined strength of these countries is definitely an existential threat.
The only country listed that is any threat to Israel is Syria, and they haven't been on Israel's level for a long time, just went through a civil war, and can't even deter Israel from bombing Syria at will. Yemen and Iran don't have borders with Israel and have no means of fighting them.
The most serious threat is Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah's territory would be much more difficult to invade, and Hezbollah much more difficult to defeat, than Gaza and Hamas (as shown last time Israel attacked them). I don't know that Hezbollah has the capabilities to attack, take, and hold Israeli territory; I haven't seen anyone claim that.
> The international community does not care that Hamas is ...
I've seen the international community talk about it for decades, including now. I think this claim, made by other partisans too, is just a fabrication of victimhood and discredits Israel. Israel survives due to the support of the leader of the international order and most powerful country.
All reports are that Netanyahu and the Israeli intelligence services knew this attack was coming. They've been promoting Hamas over more moderate elements in Gaza. The goal was to provoke an attack which would "justify" a counter-attack to completely level Gaza and kill or force out all the remaining civilians.
While there are elements of truth to this, the reality is more nuanced. They have been promoting Hamas over moderate elements, and have looked the other way as Qatar has provided money in briefcases to Hamas. Israel ignored warnings from their own intel as well as civilians who noticed that Hamas were increasing training exercises on the border from listening to radio communications. The explicit goal of promoting Hamas was not to promote an attack, but to divide and rule the Palestinians: by showing Hamas as an example of "this is what would happen if we left the West Bank" and by exacerbating the rivalry, they used this to exert control over the Palestinian Authority.
"Releasing Palestinian prisoners, allowing cash transfers, as the Qatari envoy comes and goes to Gaza as he pleases, agreeing to the import of a broad array of goods, construction materials in particular, with the knowledge that much of the material will be designated for terrorism and not for building civilian infrastructure, increasing the number of work permits in Israel for Palestinian workers from Gaza, and more. All these developments created symbiosis between the flowering of fundamentalist terrorism and preservation of Netanyahu’s rule."
The idea that these points prove that Netanyahu purposefully bolstered Hamas is tenuous at best.
That is not what the reports say. They certainly indicate some intelligence failures, unclear whether in the intelligence services themselves or in the way the reports were handled. But there's a huge difference between "we knew this attack was going to happen and let it happen" vs. "we made a mistake here".
And also worth noting, there's internal Israeli politics involved in all these reports - Netanyahu wants to show that the failure was on the military/intelligence side and not on his side.
It is completely baseless to claim that Israel knew about the attack and let it happen - no serious person is suggesting that.
Israel's early support of Hamas is no secret, they saw Hamas as a religious Islamist counterweight to the secular leftist PLO and explicitly funded them to divide Palestinian opinion. [1] Also no longer a secret is the fact that Netanyahu explicitly allowed other Arab governments to smuggle money to Hamas. [2] And the intelligence failures leave a lot of questions open, especially given the advanced state of the Israeli intelligence apparatus (Gazan are forced to be limited to 2G so they can be spied on easily). [3]
The only weak conspiracy theory here is that Israel explicitly let the attack happen, rather than the reality that they took unnecessary risks to achieve fascistic political aims that opened the possibility of retaliation.
Glad to see so many civil and enriching conversations, you are an example to the internet on how to have respectful and productive discussions on controversial topics.
Al Jazeera is an exceptionally disreputable source for coverage on this particular issue. It's not just their primary source of funding -- the Qatari state -- but also their abhorrent track record of running stories with no factual basis (such as in the wake of the Al-Ahli incident).
I can't point to anything specifically incorrect about this reporting. But you have to take a lot of primary-source-based reporting on faith, and why would I trust a source that has such a non-neutral track record?
We'd all be better served by sticking to sources that don't have obvious conflicts of interest.
Edit: I want to be clear that I don't have any specific evidence that the article contains falsehoods, and I'm not excusing any of the conduct alleged in the article. I just think Al Jazeera is a terrible way to start a constructive discussion, given its reputation.
Having a HN thread about an article does not imply endorsement of everything, or even anything, on the site.
In my experience, it's a mistake to make reliability judgements about major sources (such as news organizations) at site scope. To pick an unrelated example, we often get criticisms when HN has a thread about a Daily Mail link, but occasionally a good (for HN) article does appear there; and of course many bad (for HN) articles appear there too.
If you don't like that example, substitute any other major source—they all have a mixture of good and bad articles, good and bad information. It's therefore important to make finer-grained distinctions about these things—e.g. article scope rather than site scope.
Wow, thanks for responding dang! It's like a fleeting encounter with a celebrity.
I see the HN policy, and understand it generally. But I am vocally lodging my objection in this particular case.
To put a finer point on it: I don't think I'm the only person in my community who has an extremely negative opinion of Al Jazeera, and its historical lack of neutrality on this issue. Having a balanced and nuanced discussion underneath an article from Al Jazeera is, in my sincere opinion, impossible. So why choose this source, when many more reputable sources have covered the suffering in Gaza?
> So why choose this source, when many more reputable sources have covered the suffering in Gaza?
I am of the understanding that the people posting in the comments to this article did so because they chose to, not because dang decided this is what people should read.
Users should, of course, post on whatever threads they like. But I am implying that the OP's selection of publication serves one particular perspective, and readers should be aware of Al Jazeera's historical affiliation with that perspective.
It’s common knowledge that Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government, and that fact is brought up routinely in response to articles about Israel posted here. I’m not sure why anyone would assume that readers would be blind to that, especially considering how the discussions in the comments on these articles tend to go.
Thanks for the kind reply! (but please don't prize my comments that highly, they don't merit it)
Re your point: I hear you, but given the nature of this particular article, I assume there isn't a more primary source with this material, which mostly consists of quotations. No one has mentioned any evidence (so far as I know) that the quotes are falsified. (And yes, this is different from whether the things the quotes are saying are true, whether they've been selectively edited, and other things.)
I know it's easy for me to post things like my GP comment without understanding the impact that it can have on readers. I've been trained through thousands of iterations (if not tens of thousands by now) to think this way, when in fact it's not obvious and is even counterintuitive to most people. When the underlying topic is as painful as this one, that's a problem.
Just to be clear -- I'm not alleging that the quotes in the article are falsified or manipulated, as I have no evidence of that either.
I think my most salient argument is that this selection of article is not conducive to a constructive discussion, because some (many?) Jews have a reflexive distrust of Al Jazeera. Don't take that to minimize the substance of the article.
> On HN, we've always gone by article quality, not site quality:
I don't think that's true, per the word of PG himself. HN has had site blacklisting and downranking. "Some submissions get automatically penalized based on the title, and others get penalized based on the domain. I observed that many websites appear to automatically get a penalty of .25 to .8: arstechnica.com, businessinsider.com, easypost.com, github.com, imgur.com, medium.com, quora.com, qz.com, reddit.com, rt.com, stackexchange.com, theguardian.com, theregister.com, theverge.com, torrentfreak.com, youtube.com."
Sure, some sites are banned and some are downweighted. Most media sites, for example, are downweighted, including aljazeera.com. I've posted extensively about this over the years (sorry I don't have time atm to dig up links).
I absolutely said something substantive. But I'll make it even more explicit: Al Jazeera has an untrustworthy track record, and their unverifiable primary-source reporting should not be assumed impartial.
This is only the "genetic fallacy" if you assume that the trustworthiness of Al Jazeera articles is uncorrelated. My entire argument is that this publication is systematically not impartial, and wants to convince you of a particular (Pro-Palestinian) position.
If we're gonna have a curious conversation I must say that I don't understand the distinction between civlians and non-civilians (combatants?).
Isn't the whole point of war to kill the enemy's civilians and destroy their infrastructure, so that their nation can't support a standing army to defend whatever natural resources the attacker wants in the first place?
I wonder if there is any example from history, modern and not, where an invading army simply disabled the inveded nation's standing army and then just ... turned around left.
Or if there is any example where a nation was occupied and the civilian population did _not_ take arms, meaning that at least some of the civilians turned into combatants.
In the end, I don't get the logic of giving different status to civilians and combatants, in war. If it's illegal to kill enemy civilians, then it should be illegal to kill enemy combatants, too. After all, why should we value the combatants' lives less?
Of course, making it illegal to kill enemy combatants would effectively make war illegal. Well, yes. I can't see how war can still be legal in the current stage of our civilisation. I don't understand how we can still accept that some of us will kill others, destroy their homes and take their stuff. I don't understand how that can be seen as ethical, let alone legal.
"Dispense with the war, learn from the past" - Sodom, Ausgebombt.
There is some point at which a nation's "self-defense" is pertinent, although in reality that self is both composed of many people and nebulous to reason about. If people unjustly attack, it's not like saying "Hey! Stop violating international law!" is going to work. Of course, the supposed good actors should try their best to not cause war (in this case, Israel is not so innocent), but if war arrives unbidden on your doorstep, don't let them destroy your house and kill you.
> In the end, I don't get the logic of giving different status to civilians and combatants
The morale of the fighting force is a big reason. Most people have souls. Most people fighting in modern offensive wars are not doing so by choice.
Can you not imagine yourself being conscripted and forced to fight in a war? Do you seriously believe that in that position, you would not distinguish between an enemy combatant with a weapon and a parent fleeing with their child?
Let me know if i’m reading the sources at the bottom wrong.
Israel supported Hamas as a tactic to destroy their neighbours without restraint as classical war strategy called divide and conquer as most history or war nerds know it.
It's unsurprising classical geopolitics as known from academia 25 years ago before 9/11.
This is an important aspect when people support the measures, the 6000+ bombed kids or that palestinians just voted for them with other options.
In reality the Hamas support, blockades, and forced poverty in Gaza were part of a military plan to create desperation, hellish conditions and radicalisation from constant oppression to eventually weaken or annex depending on sources.
This has been known for long internally in the Israeli press, even mentioned in Wall Street Journal and other mainstream media in the past then called "conspiracy", before again surfacing today with the NYT articles.
Hard to do when most of the middle east is run by autocratic regimes that either get military aid from the US or the US is their security guarantor. You have to seem Pro-Palestinian to please the masses but ultimately undermine the cause to please the US
Well I think most people in the region want peace, Israelis included. However if Hamas is dedicated to war the basis of religious beliefs what are you going to do?
Far right leaders advertise maps of a "greater Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates, that is a huge provocation. Not something a "peace loving" nation would do.
Netanyahu presents a map of Israel that includes West Bank and Gaza at a UN speech and you think he "wants peace". Blatant provocations like desecrating religious sites, arresting thousands of Palestinians without charge, limiting water access, allowing and protecting settlers as they kick Palestinians from their homes in West Bank are all provocations. And that's just a short list
Massacring hundreds of people in the March of Return in 2018 during a peaceful demonstration is not the act of a "peace loving Israel".
You can't stampede into a room, guns blazing and expect people not to respond. There is no peace in the region with the status quo
I think HN readers have a strong desire to speak the inconvenient or untouchable topics. I think this is a healthy impulse.
This topic is hard because so many commenters are triggered by it, for lack of a better word.
Could AI help here? What if a comment was given an automatic 'emotional temperature' score? We might be able to address the fact that a lot of the comments will be basically pure emotion, and we can discuss the emotions instead of being distracted by the content.
Sentiment analysis tools haven't yet proved accurate enough to be useful for HN moderation; traditionally they misclassify too many things because they don't have access to intent. It does seem like LLMs have a chance at doing this better, though, and if anyone wanted to work on that, I'd certainly be interested in what they find.
Sorry, but I can only laugh at Aljazeera, an outlet from Qatar, and Qatar is the main sponsor of Hamas terrorists. It's something close to "crocodile tears", when they show these "tortures" after saluting beheadings of Israelis. If they want to destroy Israel and do ethnic cleansing, why do they keep complaining about being bombed and detained.
They are the main channel operating from Gaza, and their reputation is better than many western media channels, especially when it comes to this conflict. We wouldn't have seen many of the atrocities committed live by the IDF if it weren't for them.
In addition what they are claiming matches with previously known habits of the IDF, matches with deaths of Palestinian hostages that occurred in Israeli jails, so its not that unimaginable
> “When they spoke to us in Hebrew and we wouldn’t understand, they’d beat us up,” he continues.
> “They hit me in the back where my kidneys are and my legs. They took my family, and I don’t know where they are,” he says, his voice breaking.
> Before they were forced inside the warehouse, Israeli female soldiers came and spat on the men, Mohammed recalls.
> In the warehouse, it was common for groups of five soldiers to suddenly enter and beat one person while the others were forced to listen to his screams of pain. If any of the men and teenagers nodded off from exhaustion, the soldiers poured cold water on them.
> “Their contempt for us was unnatural, like we were lesser beings,” Mohammed says.
For some reason I find this last sentence so utterly beautiful in context it brings tears to my eyes. Here is a 14-year-old Arabic boy being tortured by Jews and STILL he operates from a worldview that viewing other human beings as lesser is unnatural. Thank you, Mohammed. What an image of beauty and horror.
You mean the only news outlet who hasn't lied once since the start of the conflict? Unlike CNN, BBC and others who just believed IDF lies like the beheaded babies thing?
Al Jazeera blatantly lied about the rocket launch that landed on the Al Shifa hospital, putting on pure misinformation to explain why it was not possible for a rocket to have landed there.
I think that GP was referring to a different hospital. Al Jazeera had claimed that the Israeli Air Force had bombed the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, killing 500. The missile was found to be from PIJ and did not even hit the hospital but the parking lot. Al Jazeera continues to deny this last I checked.
Here is a picture of the crater[0] that caused the hospital to crumble with "Hundreds under the rubble of al-Ahli Arab Hospital".[1] The hospital is still completely intact as it was never hit. Despite this clear factual error Aljazeera is still sure that at least 500 people died. You can read more here.[2]
With regard to your tweet, I can only see the first post as I don't get my information from unsourced tiwtter posts and do not have a login. That first post does not say does not say that "all statistics we know about Oct 7th are fake" but if you can find an actual source that says that Oct 7th was fake I'd be gals to see it. Especially in light of videos showing Hamas terrorists killing civilians. What exactly is your claim? That Hamas did not invade, or that they did invade, but not with guns, and that the IDF took the chance to kill its civilians at "that stupid festival"? Or that they did have guns but didn't use them because they were just going for a visit?
Scroll through a few dozen of their headlines at https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/israel-palestine-conflict/ and you will quickly discover a glaring pro-Palestinian bias that is almost comical if you are proposing they do objective, disinterested reporting.
I gave up after about 20 pages to find anything indicating otherwise.
Also a little naive. I mean more than viewing them as lesser human beings they are viewing them as the enemy. Obviously a bit unfair if they don't support Hamas and it's actions but that's war I guess.
The same Israel who wanted the US to believe a mere calendar was proof of terrorist presence, or that a laminated Al Qaeda poster from 2004 "recovered" was proof said terrorists were prepping chemical weapons, or worse, who keeps telling Gazans they'll be safe in X before bombing the place.
I don't know that story, but speaking generally: what you describe is an issue (to varying degrees) with every news organization. Moreover the line between propaganda and reporting isn't static—every reader draws it differently, depending mostly on their personal identifications.
One can, however, be touched by a story on a human level without agreeing with anything else appearing on the same site, and this is consistent with how HN has handled this question for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
Slightly related, I wonder what opportunity cost the Israeli tech sector will incur from this conflict. Instead of developing their startups, lots of young people are busy with warfare at the moment.
The least of our worries at the moment... but honestly, the Israeli tech sector is highly intertwined with the army, so I doubt this will damage it in the long run.
Both I think. Weapons manufacturers are the obvious one. But more importantly IMO is that there are a couple of tech units in the army (look up 8200 for example) whose graduates start a lot of startups (frequently skipping university). Some of these startups are arms/cyber related, but not necessarily. It's one big feedback loop really.
You're assuming that the probability to be drafted is the same for a tech worker as for the rest of the population. I don't know whether that's a valid assumption or not...
I'm not sure of the statistics but this is probably roughly true. Probably higher, actually, as tech workers tend to be more from populations that actually enlist in the military, and tech is a huge sector of the economy.
This is actually true; it’s been discussed with citations in previous HN threads. Elbit systems notoriously used to advertise this on their website (doing R&D on the population of Gaza to bill their drones as “battle tested”) until the latest redesign, but they’re not the only ones.
i've not heard from anyone on the anti-israeli side what israel should have done after 10/7 other than "leave"
its just such a confusing discussion, what kind of retaliation would someone of that mindset find appropriate for those 1000+ killed/tortured/raped from the initial attack? i can't find any steelmanned positions of this
And people seem to ignore Israel's stated goal. They no longer find it possible to live next to Hamas and are fighting a war of unconditional surrender and occupation.
So it is confusing when people claim Israel has far surpassed any proportional response as Israel was never attempting tit-for-tat, but unconditional surrender.
Wonder what the end game is going to be with this conflict - two state is dead afaik and definitely a single state solution is off the cards due to demographics and fear of the Jewish people.
The best scenario would be that Gaza is incorporated into Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan.
Removing Hamas will simply bring about a worse player like ISIS to the fore.
I come here to read tech news, not to care about two ideologically obnoxious sides who cannot throw their millennia old outdated beliefs away and live like how civilized people all around the world do.
It's not one of the primary media sites here but it has its place. That doesn't mean that everything there is true or good (for HN). For more explanation on this point, see these comments I posted earlier today:
I agree that it's weird to see the discussion open with this timing (late) and this topic (a weird side-note compared to the terrorist attack and bombin) and this source (state source from Qatar, which is Hamas-friendly.)
Re the site, see these explanations I posted earlier today. The short version is that on HN we go by article, not by site. Most media sites are mostly bad (for HN) articles, with occasional good (for HN) ones.
> The bombing of power targets, according to intelligence sources who had first-hand experience with its application in Gaza in the past, is mainly intended to harm Palestinian civil society: to “create a shock” that, among other things, will reverberate powerfully and “lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas,” as one source put it.
> Several of the sources, who spoke to +972 and Local Call on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes — which stipulate the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target. This number is calculated and known in advance to the army’s intelligence units, who also know shortly before carrying out an attack roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed.
> In one case discussed by the sources, the Israeli military command knowingly approved the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in an attempt to assassinate a single top Hamas military commander. “The numbers increased from dozens of civilian deaths [permitted] as collateral damage as part of an attack on a senior official in previous operations, to hundreds of civilian deaths as collateral damage,” said one source.
> “Nothing happens by accident,” said another source. “When a 3-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it’s because someone in the army decided it wasn’t a big deal for her to be killed — that it was a price worth paying in order to hit [another] target. We are not Hamas. These are not random rockets. Everything is intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home.”
> According to the investigation, another reason for the large number of targets, and the extensive harm to civilian life in Gaza, is the widespread use of a system called “Habsora” (“The Gospel”), which is largely built on artificial intelligence and can “generate” targets almost automatically at a rate that far exceeds what was previously possible. This AI system, as described by a former intelligence officer, essentially facilitates a “mass assassination factory.”
Technically, licenses are not free/open source if they restrict usage.
Some have created licenses against commercial or unethical uses but they are not widely used in software, as they open a can of worms - these restrictions are subjective and as such hard to enforce.
War is hell. Mostly innocents suffering on both sides of the border. And we don't seem to learn, entire human civilization's history is full of war, even peace time is just preparation for the next war.
This sort of thing is a commonplace occurrence: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-..., additionally only men being legally required to remain in Ukraine, drafted, etc. Usually it's only men who are systematically tortured/killed when Russian soldiers enter Ukrainian villages. Of course women are at risk of being raped, but so are men - and things so much worse than rape.
But the worst thing is that because of the way that men are still positioned within society, we're both targeted for these things, but are also refused any support/understanding when it does happen.
If they're being tortured that's a real problem I'd hope is investigated but at the same time, suicide bombers are a thing. I see no issue with being asked to strip.
Having served in Afghanistan it is blatantly obvious that most of HN doesn't have the faintest idea what war is like and how a terrorist insurgency fights.
Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas and want peace and a free Palestinian state according to the '67 borders. These would be the equivalents on the other side.
In fact, public opposition to Hamas[0][1] is frequently cited[2] as a primary motivation for the 10/7 attack. Gazans widely viewed Hamas as corrupt and the main reason for their destitution, and overwhelmingly preferred Fatah leaders over Hamas (despite having installed Hamas primarily due to Fatah's perceived corruption).
The theory goes: if Hamas were to embarrass Israel on the public stage with a humiliating attack, this might provoke an overwhelmingly disproportionate response by Israel against Gaza, cementing the public perception of Gazans as the victims in the conflict even in light of the 10/7 aggression - and Hamas as their freedom fighters.
This in turn would attract public sympathy for Hamas, bolstering their political prospects in Palestine, meanwhile derailing Saudi peace talks that might have resulted in formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate sovereigns. (Neutralizing peace talks between the two greatest enemies of one of Hamas's greatest benefactors, Iran, could only be viewed as a nice "plus").
I mean, even Hamas currently calls for the '67 borders in their charter:
> 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
Adding to show that the '67 borders are pretty generally supported. There's even support for them among some of the "from the river to the sea" crowd since the '67 borders touch both the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
That's quite a bit of selective reading there. Where you see "'67 borders", I see "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea".
River = the Jordan River
Sea = the Mediterranean sea
=> calling for the destruction of Israel. But sure, we'll take '67 as an intermediate step.
> Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
I don't know how to read that except the willingness to compromise on 1967 borders, as long as those ejected in 1948 can return to their land and become Israeli citizens.
What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home? Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise.
> What about the Jews who were ejected from neighboring Arab countries during these various wars? Do they get to go back home?
Yes, they should also be allowed back and several countries have explicitly allowed such a thing.
> Do you truly believe a compromise can be reached with an organization that committed a massacre on the scale of October 7th? Personally, I'm willing to compromise a lot for peace (divide Jerusalem, give up the west bank, whatever. Fighting over land/religion is absurd), but I honestly don't believe that's what Hamas is aiming for. Their actions at least indicate otherwise.
I don't think compromise is an option that has legitimately been tried.
Compromise has been tried. The creation of Israel was a compromise. Rejected by the Arab states. Oslo was a compromise. Rejected by Arafat. Camp David 2000 was a compromise. Rejected again by Arafat.
The Palestinian position is that Oslo and Camp David were not good faith compromises by Israel, but even if so Arafat made no counter-offer. He rejected the offers out of hand. Then the second Intifada started and ushered in Likud and Netanyahu which led us to where we are today.
As far as a Palestinian right-of-return to within Israel's borders. It would be the demographic end of a Jewish democratic Israel. It's the one thing that Israel absolutely will not and cannot compromise on. It's an unreasonable demand.
To my mind: Palestinians have never had effective leadership and they've been used as pawns by the other Arab nations. The lack of Palestinian leadership is not entirely the Palestinians' doing, at least since Arafat anyway. Israel has intentionally kept West Bank and Gaza leadership divided. Nonetheless, Palestinians are going to need to figure out a way to have effective leadership. Someone who is motivated and empowered to negotiate for peace, recognizing that Palestinians are not negotiating from a position of strength.
You've badly broken the site guidelines in this thread, as well as the request I posted at the top. This sort of battle is exactly what we don't want here, so please stop—regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.
There has been a longstanding and unsinkable narrative that, frustrated by the refusal of Jewish communities in Arab lands to move to the early Israel, an active campaign of bombings etc was launched by Israel itself, surreptitiously, in order to exarcerbate tensions already caused by 1948.
Of course, the fact that these communities had existed within the Arab world for centuries itself belies the notion that the Arabs wanted to exterminate them "for Allah". As anyone with even a passing knowledge of history can attest to.
I was born in Iraq where the Jewish community there was ethnically cleansed.
Way before the foundation of Israel, my father and uncles were restricted in numerous ways because of their Jewish ancestry. For example there were quotas on the number of Jews allowed in universities.
Jews were frequently imprisoned there (including my father and his brothers) for the sole reason of being Jewish.
> Of course, the fact that these communities had existed within the Arab world for centuries itself belies the notion that the Arabs wanted to exterminate them "for Allah". As anyone with even a passing knowledge of history can attest to.
Let’s apply that argument to eg mid 20th century Europe. Let me ask you this directly: are you denying the holocaust?
You are right. I shouldn’t have used that phrase. It was wrong and I agree with you 100% that isn’t the real reason, just a very poor abbreviation of a deeper reason.
It was for the more common reasons. To scapegoat the Jews while the government steals and does horrible things to its citizens.
Jraby, you need to distinguish between sectarian tensions which were deliberately inflamed
(campaign of Mossad bombings targeting Jewish communities elsewhere in the Middle East, to force sectarian fault lines to implode - documented BY an Iraqi Jew whose father left Iraq, served in the IDF, then left for London where the daughter wrote a book detailing this very thing),
vs the long tradition of Muslims and Jews living peacefully side by side. The Caliph Umar, when he took control of Jerusalem from the Byzantine's, actually invited the scattered Jews BACK to Jerusalem. When Jews were being banished from Al-Andalus (Spain) after the Christian reconnaissance (Spanish Inquisition and all that), the Ottoman Sultan actually sent multiple ships to RESCUE them, which is why there was such a large Jewish presence in N Africa.
There is simply NO comparison between the Jewish experience under Muslim rule, and the Jewish history of repression under European rule. None.
And then Zionism came along. If not for that, you would be Iraqi today. That's the sad truth.
I’m not comparing Muslim vs European rule. The point is that when world events happen, Jews aren’t safe.
Life wasn’t equal as a Jew in Iraq, and that was one of the best examples one could find. And it shouldn’t matter that Israel was formed - if Jews were safe there they should always be safe.
You missed my point. Jews in Iraq actually refused to go to Israel in the 50s. Which is why the clandestine bombing campaign, detailed in the books (written by Iraqi Jews, published in London) I mentioned before, was carried out by Mossad. To engineer the conditions to get them to move.
That's why I laid the blame on Zionisms door.
And in Iran, where Mossad did NOT get to strut their stuff, the rather large Jewish community exists to this day.
Anyway, enough said. I've made this point as clearly and carefully as I could - and yet still got bizarre accusations of somehow being a Holocaust denier (not by you, but another yahoo who was dealt with).
Putting aside your barrage of disinformation, conspiracy theories and plain lies, it wouldn’t really matter /even if/ jews lived peacefully as equals to muslims in the muslim world before the 20th century (which they absolutely did not).
The fact is, they were expelled from those countries. EVEN IF it was “safe” being an iraqi jew in 1850, it was not in 1950, and it is definitely not today. So what is your point?
> Let’s apply that argument to eg mid 20th century Europe. Let me ask you this directly: are you denying the holocaust?
Oh, go to hell with that fake question. What I said was DIRECTLY about Jewish communities living in the Muslim world, for centuries. Any half-decent professor of history would agree with what I said. It's not even remotely controversial nor contested by any serious historian, Jewish, Christian or Muslim.
You're desperately clutching at straws, trying to imply that anyone here denied the centuries long EUROPEAN history of pogroms and expulsions, from Britain and Spain in the 14th to 15th centuries, to the repeated pogroms throughout Western, Central and Eastern Europe, culminating in the 20th century where much of Europe COLLABORATED with the Germans to butcher 8+ million people far away from any front lines, 6 million of whom were Jews.
Why are you so desperate to put your words in other people's mouth? Are YOU trying to deny the Holocaust? Hmm ...
My apologies, I thought you were simply mistaken rather than trolling.
I asked you a direct question that followed from your argument, where you proposed essentially a global jewish conspiracy, based on strawman arguments.
As an answer, I got an angry rant attacking me personally, citing an unknown authority (“Any half decent professor”) as your source in an attempt to bully and discredit me.
Note no promise of peace. So they just continue the war. Besides, return just means they can take over 100% from within. Either way it's not a 'compromise'.
What exactly is their conception of the Jewish state that exists within those borders? Something that exists until the next time the Arabs try to wipe Israel off the map?
How do you think the 1967 borders became the current borders? Egypt shut down Israel’s access to the Red Sea and massed troops on Israel’s border. Then Jordan and Iraq sent troops. And then Israel kicked everybody’s ass and occupied the Sinai, the Gaza Strip (which had been occupied by Egypt) and the West Bank (which had been annexed by Jordan).
How is that the other side? Israeli- and Palestinian-Americans, for example, don’t have any real reason to be on opposite sides here. (Not to mention all the American Jews who aren’t actually Israeli.)
I’m reminded of an excellent Middle Eastern restaurant in California that I went to on occasion during the Second Intifada. The had Hebrew- and Arabic language newspapers. The patrons (I assume) mostly had some form of Middle Eastern or Jewish heritage, but I don’t really know which. The falafel sandwiches were fantastic. The only sides were things like tahini and harissa. As far as I know, basically everyone who ate there wanted peace and didn’t really want any particular group to “win” the ongoing conflict.
I think the owners were Lebanese-American, but it didn’t matter.
And some support the war Hamas rages despite the effect on the Palestinian people/civilians. Is that an other other side? This is complex, and we really can't describe this conflict as just having two sides.
Just like some Israelis support expelling all Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan and settling these territories with Israelis. The only "side" that's not wrong (IMO) is the one that condemns violence against civilians and is for peace and the two state solution, this "side" exists among both Israelis and Palestinians (but is the minority for both).
Then how would you refer to the different groups/entities and/or populations involved in this conflict?
I'd say there is of course a range of opinions and different narratives on both sides (from from actively seeking coexistence to humanitarian to pragmatic to nationalist to religious fundamentalist to having a deep personal hate for the other side).
Then you have all kinds of different groups, factions and third parties with their own allegiances and motivation.
However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land. You can see this rather easily by observing which groups view each other as mortal enemies and which merely as a nuisance.
There are - thankfully - lots of people trying to bridge the divide and not aligning themselves only with one side. This is where we all should be headed, but it doesn't change the fact that currently there are sides.
> However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land.
We're talking here about the conflict that has happened as a result of the Hamas attacks on October 7.
Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN). And you've described it as "Israeli people-Palestine people".
Every person has a unique perspective in human interactions, implying diverse viewpoints. Discussions often generalize these complexities, as comprehending every nuance is impossible for one individual
speaking of complex, half of the reason I absolutely laughed at the call for statements and the idea that “your silence is noted” here in the US is because I didn't want my Lebanese and Egyptian friends calling for statements too. It wasnt clear if they and their families would be roped in a few weeks with conscription or not-discriminate-enough bombing.
Its even funnier when that silence is interpreted as wishing for a pogrom, like, see a therapist? If there is 1,000 years to support that view of every society turning against you, the common denominator isn’t us!
Heck, even at the time of the 2006 elections, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians including Hamas supporters also supported a peace agreement with Israel, and moderation of what was then Hamas's platform. (The latter occurred, the former not so much -- in large part because Israel stopped negotiating when the executive of the PA wanted Hamas -- the party that won a majority in the legislative elections -- involved in the negotiations.)
>I want you to know something else, which is that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas do not represent us, the Palestinian people, at all. We reject authority and we reject Abbas and all his ministers. I do not know whether you have heard of the security coordination agreement between the Zionist occupation and the Palestinian Authority. Years ago, the Palestinian Authority concluded an agreement under which it would serve the occupying entity in terms of security. That is, all the young Palestinian activists who fight the Zionist occupation in one way or another and the occupation cannot arrest them, the Palestinian Authority pursues them, arrests them, and hands them over to the occupation, and then no one knows the fate of that young man or that girl. These do not represent us, nor any other Palestinian. These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America.
Based on what I know about Palestinians, they appear to be close to having no agency. They don't control what crosses their border, the Israeli government may well be trying to destroy them and their politics are the plaything of regional and non-regional powers. For example, Israel played a role in incubating Hamas [0, 1].
Now if I were in Gaza my opinion is that what they are doing is stupid. They don't really have a choice but to like it and make the best of their situation with charity, tolerance and love. All the other plays lead to worse results. But there aren't many political bodies with less agency.
They have no power, and israel and hamas are killing them in the middle of their war. That is just a misleading comment. They have very very very little power to change things right now. It looks like people are just hoping not to die, and people are dieing all around them.
Never said that they were saints. It's important to know what you're actually dealing with though.
From the article:
"In other words, Hamas’ absolute rule of Gaza is not what the Palestinians voted for back in 2006. In fact, since the median age of Gazans is 18, half of Hamas’ subjects weren’t even born when the election took place."
I cannot help but see most of the arguments that people make equating Hamas with Palestinians as bad faith. Explanations are not excuses and knowing why things are happening is the first real step towards fixing anything.
There's also the obvious elephant in the room that Israel is executing a disproportional response to the terror attacks and the conditions they're creating will only extend this conflict and create more terror. As the article states, it's pretty well understood that citizens need stable material conditions before voting really works well, otherwise they tend to trend towards the reactionary.
> Additional friendly reminder that Bush Jr is responsible for Hamas.
Israeli policy during the occupation is responsible for Hamas, and it existed before W had any foreign policy influence.
Blaming Bush for Hamas because he was somehow responsible for the elections happening is stupid. The elections happening was a good thing. Fatah stupidly rejecting the idea of a national unity government was a bad thing. Israel deliberately seeking to assure a Hamas victory by interfering with campaigning, and voter registration, conducting a targeted campaign of arrests of Palestinian politicians, and doing everything possible to make the Fatah-led PA look weak, complicit, and corrupt in Israel's favor in the immediate runup to the elections was horrible -- but predictable given the entire history of Israel actively promoting Hamas, from its founding, as a tool to divide Palestinians and assure that there was a public face of opposition less sympathetic to, particularly, the population of Israel's Western Allies (particularly the US) than the more secular nationalists of the PLO during the height of occupation, and Fatah as a political party once there was an entity to have political parties.
Sorry, it was an oversimplification, but the article here is pretty decent. The major takeaway is that conditions were not right and the whole election cycle was a bit ham fisted. Your break down is appreciated as it's got a lot of moving parts!
> These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America.
To me a smoking gun here is that Biden's administration wants the Palestinian Authority to rule Gaza "after Hamas" (as an aside, I sincerely doubt Israel will be successful in destroying Hamas, but ofc even if they do there will just be a more radical group taking its place anyway); history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they know they will be a vassal/puppet of US interests. There's many examples but the most recent one is when we (I'm American) propped up the bogus Afghanistan "Government" only for it to instantly collapse and be replaced again by the Taliban the moment we withdrew.
Really hope there's a path forward that gives the Palestinians real autonomy and an end to the bloodshed. In reality, I expect this conflict to continue indefinitely and us to just continue supporting the occupation, which I find heartbreaking but my rational mind is convinced is the most likely outcome.
> history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they
Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA.
Egypt certainly doesen't want anything to do with the region or Palestinians anymore. So US can only chose between supporting a direct Israeli occupation or a semi-indirect one (through the Palestinian Authority). I don't think the US government wants to install a puppet regime in Gaza, they'd rather have absolutely nothing to do with at all.
Tangential but when it comes to Afghanistan I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster.
> Palestinians real autonomy
Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades.
> Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA.
I'm sorry, but the US installing powers that are favorable to it is not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact. How do you think Pinochet and others happened? It certainly wasn't organic (at least not entirely so).
Anyway, regarding the options, there's technically a few more like Jordan or other arab states, or a new organization arising (albeit in reality the US and others would intervene to stop them taking power). But beyond those quibbles I don't disagree with you that there's no good options, I'm just stating my belief that if we support organization X, it's because organization X is directly controlled by us or indirectly its incentives align well with our own.
> Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades.
Agreed fully, and that's one of the problems.
> I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster.
Why not both? Imperialism is a pretty stupid ideology, at least if one's goal is to keep one's country safe and powerful. If one's goal is to extract resources from one's own country at the cost of lots of bloodshed of your citizens and others', then it achieves the goal fine.
> I'm sorry, but the US installing powers that are favorable to it is not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact. How do you think Pinochet and others happened?
Yes, it was certainly a fact during the cold war however foreign policy is not static and changes pretty often. Even Iraq and to some extent Iraq (and certainly Afghanistan) didn't really fit the pattern that well. Considering that no other country benefited more from the US toppling Saddam than Iran did (considering it was a Shia majority state ruled by a Sunni minority, the inverse of Syria for instance).
The invasion of Afghanistan on the other hand was justifiable both on defensive and humanitarian grounds. While the aftermath was mostly botched, US had no interest in somehow subjugating it it long-term (IMHO imposing a "colonial" administration directly controlled by NATO/Western powers would've been the least bad option).
> more like Jordan or other arab states
None of them would ever accept that (after all Jordan willingly gave up the West Bank back in the 80s and I don't see why would they ever want to take it back even if Israel had no objections).
> (albeit in reality the US and others would intervene to stop them taking power).
Again before the US and other count stop it you need some regional powers who are willing to support this.
> X, it's because organization X is directly controlled by us or indirectly its incentives align well with our own.
At this point it seems to me that from the perspective of the US the middle east is more of a distraction. They don't have that many vital strategic interest in the region since US+Canada alone produce produce significantly more oil than all the Arab states combined.
Plenty Palestinians oppose the war and want peace. This is the equivalent.
In their eyes, to rid of kahanists like Netanyahu and his cronies, who have subjugated them for decades, subjected them to a death by a thousand paper-cuts, they don't demand Jordan and Turkey besiege and bomb Tel Aviv.
Given the population density in the Strip and lack of trust in Israel by Egypt on refugees, smaller-scale military solution followed by a political solution must have been pursued but instead the majority sentiment in Israel was all-out revenge (and collective punishment very much okay: https://archive.is/t9pmT). It has been downhill from there.
Taken in isolation there is nothing wrong with this type of reporting, the IDF should be held to high standards. In the context of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, there is a tendency to hold Israel to a much higher standard and excuse the Palestine side as if they were naive children. I don't see how that could possibly set up any lasting peace. Israel will become more deaf to outsiders, and Palestinians will not be entrusted to make decisions for themselves.
I think there is good reason to hold Israel to a higher standard. It is by many metrics one of the most sophisticated states in the whole world. It has one of the highest fractions of people with higher education, it is a highly innovative economy. It is the second largest country of origin for NASDAQ stocks - US being the first one - despite being small by numbers at around 10m people. Whereas the Palestinian territories barely classify as the third world.
Similarly, it was awful, but not really surprising when the Taliban were torturing people but it was a shock when the US troops in Afghanistan did so.
This isn't an excuse or justification for Hamas. But indeed I think our expectations of Israel should be higher.
I completely agree that Israel should be held (and hold itself) to a higher standard than Hamas.
I think one thing Israelis... dislike... is that often Israel is held to higher standards than every other country on Earth, is held to impossible standards. And when it falls short of those standards - it is considered proof that Israel is evil.
Under what standard is conduct like this acceptable?
“One of the soldiers said I looked like his nephew and that this nephew was killed in front of his grandmother who was taken hostage by Hamas and that the soldiers will slaughter us all,”
Those who dared to leave their homes for whatever vital errand were shot down in the streets by snipers.
“They made us empty out our bags on the floor and blocked us from picking up our money or our wives’ gold,” Nader recalls. “What little food we had, they also threw away. They took our money, IDs and phones.”
The men and teenage boys were taken to a warehouse where they sat on a bare floor covered in scattered grains of rice. There they were beaten, interrogated and verbally abused. There was no sleep, and the grains of rice cut their skin as they sat there, undressed.
I don't trust a story reported by Al Jazeera, which is heavily biased against Israel, without outside verification.
That said, I'm sure Israel falls short of ideal on many occasions, not everything it does is exemplary, to say the least. On the whole, Israel's conduct is, I believe, moral and legitimate.
Amnesty International has for decades documented widespread torture by Israeli authorities in places of detention across the West Bank. However, over the past four weeks, videos and images have been shared widely online showing gruesome scenes of Israeli soldiers beating and humiliating Palestinians while detaining them blind-folded, stripped, with their hands tied, in a particularly chilling public display of torture and humiliation of Palestinian detainees.
Amnesty International has showed itself to be little more than Kremlin mouthpiece in the past few years with a very one sided reporting of Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, his government and the Russian armed forces are desperate to hide the truth about the invasion, including the possible war crimes they are committing in Ukraine. This page will feature Amnesty International’s regular updates on the conflict, which help to uncover the human rights crises caused by Russia’s invasion.
I'm critical of Israel's handling of this conflict just as much as I'm critical of Turkey's response to Kurdish separatists. No one is held to impossible standards. Everyone deserves dignity
And yet no where near as many people are crying and protesting against Turkey. Maybe people are just critical, but they refuse to take the same actions. How many people support BDS against Israel? How many support it against Turkey?
There are US military bases in the Kurdish administered part of Syria. The US has troops stationed here for many reasons, one of the biggest ones being to protect the Kurds in the region(just recently the US military shot down a Turkish drone flying in this airspace)
Turkey already has a lot of human rights violations on its record, but, if it got to the level of Israeli repression in West Bank against Palestinians, there would be a lot more sanctions against Turkey
I'm not talking about the US government doing stuff. I'm talking about ordinary people doing stuff. If people cared about human rights abuses they would protest Turkey and Israel (and plenty of other countries). We should, of course, also get protests against Hamas since they are doing a lot of shitty things as well. Instead we only get protests on one side. It feels so partisan. I think the major problem is people like things to be black and white. Israel is bad so that means Hamas is good. They can't just accept that there are two bad guys. I think people have a hard time separating Hamas and the Palestinian people which makes it harder for them to call out Hamas.
Frankly, I don't think we know the scale of abuses. The idea that Turkey has less than Israel is just an assumption. As far as I can tell there are significantly more eyes on Israel. When Israel does something wrong it is all over the news. When Turkey does something wrong it is often crickets and when it is reported it doesn't make it to the front page of HN like this post. Just upvoting an article doesn't take any real effort but people can't even be bothered to do that about Turkey or any other atrocity but when it comes to Israel they can.
I understand the concern but I also understand the general public reaction to Israel's actions. The occupation is one thing, but the genocidal rhetoric by Israeli officials and the desecration of muslim holy sites and harassment of Armenian Christians in Jerusalem is another.
Israel needs to do more to change its behavior and protect its image if it doesn't want people to be repulsed by its actions
Turkey isn't innocent but Turkey is calculated and careful. They know Kurdish people represent a significant part of their population (20 million) and they can't carelessly stomp around like Israel is used to doing
>I understand the concern but I also understand the general public reaction to Israel's actions. The occupation is one thing, but the genocidal rhetoric by Israeli officials and the desecration of muslim holy sites and harassment of Armenian Christians in Jerusalem is another.
I'm not sure if you do understand my concerns. The problem is the genocidal talk is going both ways.
I've seen some estimates that 25% of Tel Aviv is LGBT. If Palestine controlled the entire region (from the river to the sea) how many of those in Tel Aviv would be killed? Calling for a people to take over land who we know will specifically target a certain demographic to kill is genocidal rhetoric. Yet so many westerners are literally calling for it. It is hard to take people's criticism against genocide seriously when they are calling for an action that will lead to genocide.
Christians are persecuted in Palestine as well. (I've seen some numbers that indicate Christians in Palestine support Palestine more than Israel, but it isn't really clear). When looking at the percentage of Christians over time in Palestine, I'm guessing they aren't treated all that well in Palestine either. I haven't seen any numbers about Jews in Palestine, but if there are any, I doubt they are treated well.
I'm just complaining about the selective outrage. Ignoring well known terrible things in the same conflict you are protesting is so selective it feels deceptive. If you are focused enough on a conflict to know about the bad things on "their" side then call out "your" side as well. If you don't call out your side I will just assume you don't care about abuses. (Sorry, I'm just rambling and know you aren't justifying genocide/abuses)
> Israel needs to do more to change its behavior and protect its image if it doesn't want people to be repulsed by its actions
Sure, but I guess this goes back to my complaint about selectively being outraged. Why are so many people repulsed by Israel not also repulsed by Hamas?
> Turkey isn't innocent but Turkey is calculated and careful. They know Kurdish people represent a significant part of their population (20 million) and they can't carelessly stomp around like Israel is used to doing
You know something like 20% of Israelis are Muslims and a couple more percentage are non ethnic Jews? If Turkey can't oppress the Kurds (in the same way Israel does) because of the percentage of the population then how can Israel do it?
Regardless, I don't trust the Turkey (or Israel) numbers. We don't know what these governments are doing and that is my point. They are all crap. Selectively picking the bad guy and assuming the numbers are accurate and ignoring the other side is dumb.
As a sibling comment mentioned, I think the US was both held to a high standard and determined to be failing that standard during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the Nisour Square massacre, etc.
And while it might be frustrating to expect one side to behave without having similar expectations for the other side, I again offer up the US wars in the Middle East as an analogous situation where ISIS wasn't being held to the same expectations of warfare as the US was.
None of the above is to excuse what Hamas has done/is doing, naturally. Just to point out that this isn't the first time and that in the longer context of history, Israel isn't somehow being singled out as an exception.
Obviously this depends on who you're listening to.
Certainly, the chants for a ceasefire right now because there are civilian deaths in Gaza can be a way of holding Israel to impossible standards. No country on Earth can wage war without civilians being killed, so unless you believe that Israel isn't entitled to wage war against Hamas in this situation, it's not clear what a call for ceasefire means - Israel should just surrender?
Also, it's hard to tell how much of this is a Twitter bubble vs not, but the amount of people calling what Israel is doing genocide is very large (despite this being completely wrong), and many people are saying something to the effect of "nothing at all makes it ok to kill civilians", see above what that kind of statement means.
It's not an impossible standard to attempt to minimize civilian casualties. It's a crime of war not to. Israel is incautiously bombing all over Gaza including refugee camps. They are destroying housing and hospitals. They have dropped more bombs in a few weeks than the US dropped in their first year war on Afghanistan.
We can definitely call what Israel is doing "genocidal". And it does rise to the label of ethnic cleansing.
> It's not an impossible standard to attempt to minimize civilian casualties. It's a crime of war not to.
Completely agree.
> Israel is incautiously bombing all over Gaza including refugee camps. They are destroying housing and hospitals.
Disagree.
First, I'm not sure what you mean by "refugee camps" here (since in some situation all of Gaza is referred to as a "Refugee camp").
Second, they are definitely destorying housing, but that's because Hamas militans are hiding in that housing. What is the alternative?
Israel asked the people to evacuate and gave a a lot of time to evacuate those buildings, despite this allowing Hamas militants to evacuate as well, exactly to minimize casualties.
And Israel hasn't destroyed hospitals as far as I'm aware, despite many people thinking so.
> They have dropped more bombs in a few weeks than the US dropped in their first year war on Afghanistan.
This should by itself invalidate your statement that it's incautiously bombing. If the amount of bombing is so large, how are there so few civilian deaths compared to other conflicts?
> We can definitely call what Israel is doing "genocidal". And it does rise to the label of ethnic cleansing.
There is not intent to kill all the Palestinians. The reason we know there's no such intent is that if Israel truy were trying to do it, far far more civilians would've been killed. You can see that in every conflict in which a country really did go all-out and didn't care about deaths. (E.g. Syrian war, 600k dead, various actual genocides that have happened, etc.)
Ethnic cleansing - for sure the current population of North Gaza was asked to vacate to the South. You can call that temporary ethnic cleansing if you want, I don't think it fits. If in the long run Israel doesn't try to remove any Gazans, they all are able to go back to the North - then it wouldn't really be ethnic cleansing. (There is the issue of many of their homes having been demolished - which is a clearer case for ethnic cleansing - but I still think it falls under the umbrella of justified attacks, but I also think Israel should do something to help the people made homeless.)
> What Israel is doing is disproportionate and cruel.
It's fighting a war. All wars are cruel. Israel didn't want this war, Hamas did. And Israel doesn't really have an alternative.
> If in the long run Israel doesn't try to remove any Gazans
I am certainly not holding my breath for this.
Innocents dying is a fact of war and war is cruel but Israel's handling of this has been especially cruel--happening on top of their years long blockading and imprisonment of Gazans. Maybe entertain the possibility that Israel may not, in fact, be being righteous.
Is Israel being held to a highest standards though? I think the US wars are a great point of comparison. US got totally dragged through the gutter for, frankly, all of its Middle Eastern interventions: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Libya is maybe the odd one out - maybe.
To be clear, I'm staying clear of any assessment of moral ground of either side. I'm making a limited argument about expected standards.
Well, it's hard to say - the US killed far, far more people in its wars. That said this war has been waged for far less time.
It really depends on how you extrapoalate out the deaths in Gaza. If it's "Israel kills 10k people a month", that would be a horrible situation where Israel would be acting very immoraly.
If you assume that there are going to be far less casualties going forward, relatively speaking (which is my view, given that Isarel has switched to a ground offsenve), then this war will end up with far fewer deaths than Iraq or Afghanistan
If prisoner well-being was Qatar's concern, it would be best to bring accusations during diplomatic discussions. This is more like Russia Today calling out prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay. I don't think Israelis see Al Jazeera as a neutral player here, and are now less likely to demand better of the IDF.
Historically casualties reported by Gaza authorities have been reliable. We are also trusting Israeli casualty numbers while reports now are coming out showing many friendly fire victims.
One of my filter bubbles presents me with something similar to what the parent is seeing, for another datapoint.
There are extremely different narratives which one can be presented with.
In one, the pro-palestine marches have been commandeered by russia/iran and/or neonazis, to the extent of chanting 30's era slogans and marking people's homes based on their Jewishness. The on the ground atrocities and brutal tactics of Hamas are hilighted against the humanness of Israeli victims.
In another, Israel, aided by the US, is committing the systematic genocide of a severely underdefended population and there's an unspoken understanding of how Hamas could have arisen in such conditions. There's a sense that everything Hamas is doing is ineffectual and anyway reactive. The on the ground atrocities pale in comparison to the Israeli-sourced on the ground atrocities due to the imbalance of power and an implied overarching guilt / causality.
It depends on the characterization you give Palestinian citizens; are they captives of Hamas, are they complicit in Hamas holding hostages and firing rockets at civilians, or are they just part of Hamas?
Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 and please don't comment in this spirit in this thread. We're trying for something different, to the extent that that's possible, and so far this thread has at least been doing better than the previous one.
The same goes for some of the commenters arguing against your position—my moderation point here is certainly not about agreeing with them and disagreeing with you (I add this because I know it can all too easily feel that way).
> If Palestinians leave Gaza to Egypt, then Egypt will be complicit with Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
But at least it guarantees that there are Palestinians who can seek redress, e.g. at the ICJ. But I suppose when there's the "Palestinian cause", Palestinian lives cease to matter.
(let's ignore West Bank for a moment since Al-Sisi and you both did)
Give me a single reliable source that says Hamas were in hospitals or schools that were bombed.
The IDF is a bullshit source btw, they lied and they still lie while burning humanitarian aid.
We shouldn't take any statements from either side of the conflict at face value, but it's not realistic to deny any evidence that arises just because of who produced it. Here's what I think is a pretty reasonable take on that[1].
Here is CNN reporting on a video that shows a guy with an RPG walking around the hospital[2].
FWIW, I agree that the IDF soldiers in the linked tweet should be punished for destroying civilian property/aid without any military purpose. It's good to criticize anybody when they do something wrong, regardless of which side of the conflict you lean towards.
The Rafah crossing is one of about half a dozen border crossings in Gaza. Is it really so out of the question that Israel allow civilians to seek refuge within Israel while they wage their campaign? I am fully aware that it would be politically unpopular, but without allowing that to happen I find it hard to take Israeli politicians at their word when they claim they are doing everything to minimise civilian casualties.
It is absolutely impossible. There is no way to tell who are civilians and who are Hamas militants - they purposeful wear civilian clothing and hide amongst civilians.
If Israel were to let them through the border into Israel, there is no possible way to prevent Hamas militants from killing many many more people.
(Unless you mean to create temporary refuge camps heavily armed within Israel that would still be closed borders, which doesn't seem like an improvemnt over the current situation, if you know anything about the geography of the area.)
It's really interesting how the IDF claims to be doing targeted strikes and operations while at the same time there is the general "we can't tell who is civilian vs. militants".
It all codes to attitude of "there is no such thing as a non-combatant Palestinian" which leads to collective punishment which is a war crime according to the Geneva convention.
I can't imagine Israelis haven't thought this through - so it seems premeditated.
Yes, Hamas not wearing uniform or insignia, a crass war crime, is indeed premeditated. It is the utmost responsibility of every party to a war to clearly distinguish themselves from civilians.
I would assume it could be guaranteed that they would arrive unarmed.
> Unless you mean to create temporary refuge camps heavily armed within Israel that would still be closed borders, which doesn't seem like an improvemnt over the current situation
You are right that they would have to remain in a confined space. Still, they wouldn't be in danger of being bombarded which would be a vast improvement. Compared with an evacuation into Egypt it would also have the advantage that people would presumably feel more confident that they would eventually be allowed to return (given that Israel would rather they returned to Gaza than remain indefinitely within Israel).
In 1948 Jewish terrorists drove numbers of Palestinians from their homes into Egypt during the Nakba. Israel has refused to let the refugees they created return for the past 75 years. So while Israel is carpet bombing Gaza,the party to be condemned is - Egypt? For not cooperating in Israel's effort to drive the Gazans from their homes?
> In 1948 Arab states started and lost an illegal invasion and drove millions of Jews from their homes into Israel.
Did you mean this? There is no right to return, for no one. I'm not returning to Polish Silesia, Palestinian descendants aren't returning to imaginary ancestral land.
For one, yes Egypt is complicit in the situation of Gaza. They're paid ~$1.5B/yr by the US in defense aid that's contingent on them playing nice with Israeli defense policy which is mainly seen day to day in the Egyptian enforcement of the Gazan blockade.
On top of that though, it's not clear the humanitarian solution is opening that border. With many high level Israeli officials calling for Gaza to be ethnically cleansed, encouraging an evacuation from land that the Gazans might not be allowed back on to could be viewed in hindsight as assisting a crime against humanity.
> On top of that though, it's not clear the humanitarian solution is opening that border. With many high level Israeli officials calling for Gaza to be ethnically cleansed, encouraging an evacuation from land that the Gazans might not be allowed back on to could be viewed in hindsight as assisting a crime against humanity.
Allowing people to escape murder is not "assisting with a crime against humanity", whereas stopping them from doing so is clearly exacerbating the crime against humanity.
Which is the point: Egypt isn't blocking Palestinian exits to stop Israel from ethnically cleansing Palestine, it is just counting on not letting that be done by pushing the Palestinians out as refugees being likely to create a pile of corpses that (1) Egypt won't need to feed and secure, and (2) Egypt can use internationally in political propaganda against Israel even more than it could use an expensive pile of refugees.
Except the combo of general Egyptian/IDF defense coordination brokered by the US combined with the explicit calls for ethnic cleansing by high level Israeli government officials very well could be interpreted as explicitly assisting in ethnic cleansing.
> Except the combo of general Egyptian/IDF defense coordination brokered by the US combined with the explicit calls for ethnic cleansing by high level Israeli government officials very well could be interpreted as explicitly assisting in ethnic cleansing.
Sure, but then it would be following the agreement with Israel restricting imports that would be assisting with the ethnic cleansing more than allowing refugees out.
Absolutely, and I'm saying that there's been a change in Egyptian policy wrt Gaza and Israel since Oct 7th. Egypt visibly stopped including the IDF in import decisions for a while leading Israel to declare that they would bomb any imports Egypt let in. https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/israel-issues-warning-to-e... Such a statement would only be required if Egypt intended to allow imports without Israel's approval. Such disagreement wrt humanitarian policies could also be seen in not wanting to be complicit in what might be seen as a crime against humanity. A "we tried to give them aid, violating our long standing agreement with Israel, and also weren't complicit in the ethnic cleansing" argument.
All neighboring countries have a fair share of experiences with palestinian groups starting civil wars/trying to overthrow their governments. Even if it was not for keeping the conflict with Israel alive (which is a perfect tool for them to distract from their own problems), they would not want them in.
Altough you're right: Jordan has its own, earlier, history with Palestinian arabs.
The Palestinians moved to Jordan after losing the 1967 war, started a "civil" war in Jordan and were expelled to Lebanon after losing in 1971. Only then they started the 1975 "civil" war in Lebanon.
They have prepared and requested to send a large amount of aid through that border which Israel disallowed. As for opening the border for Israel’s request to Nakba the whole population into someone else’s desert…
> Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
>
> Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.
It sounds like an effort to make Hamas and Gaza peaceful neighbors and normalize the situation. Didn’t work out.
I understand the benefit extra work permits would've brought to Gaza's economy but removing the blockade would do a lot more to help Gaza's economy.
Work permits are just a bandaid over a much wider occupation.
The blockade didn't originate from some Israeli hatred towards Gaza, it had very clear and objective reasons, so far we only see confirmations of why it was necessary.
So far we see confirmations of why the US needs to cut foreign aid to Israel. While the US is trying so hard to focus their efforts on their "pivot to the Asia-Pacific", Israel is pulling it back to expending resources on the Middle East.
Letting Netanyahu and the Likud party undermine Palestinian statehood isn't a long term strategy and, if the US state dep have any sense, they'll aim for a real resolution to this conflict, not just promises of "working towards a two state solution"
The Asia pivot ended after Obama left. America doesn’t give a fk about what’s going on in Myanmar anymore (compare this to Obama pissing off his wife circa 2012 by kissing Aung San Suu Kyi and compelling the military junta to give up power for 12 years)
The only thing that cutting US supplies to Israel is going to accomplish is increase in deaths of innocent Palestinians as Israel will be forced to use less precise munition ‾\_(ツ)_/‾
No, Israel will be forced to an actual peace settlement because those iron dome interceptors don't come cheap. It's only a matter of time before they run out, Hamas rockets actually start hitting Israel, and Israel actually legitimately comes to the negotiating table instead of trying to undermine and bomb its way to its objectives. Golan Heights will probably be returned to Syria, Lebanon will see some returned land, and we might see the 1967 borders in real life instead of just the history books.
Al Jazeera is not an unbiased source and it a one sided view, yet it made it to the top. It has nothing to do with tech. What I have not seen made it this far:
* Stories documenting intentional atrocities against Israeli civilians.
* Vile propaganda calling for violence against Jews and Israeli, plentifully available on everywhere.
* Stories about how Hamas still were firing rockets into Israel, while complaining that Gaza needs fuel, food, etc.
* Mind blowing testimonies in Congress by the heads of some of the most prestigious universities in the world, where they said that it depends on the context if calling for genocide of Jewish is a violation of the code. Their hypocrisy has been exposed. Their academic excellence has been reasonable questioned. This is far more relevant to the tech, and yet, it gained very little traction, though it is very relevant to tech sector.
* Ukraine has been pummeled by Russia continuously for more than a year. Everything from killing civilians, to destruction of critical infrastructure, descrying schools, murdering and tortureiung civilians and POWs, to hacking Ukrainian IT infrastructure, yet the highest rated submission about massacre in Bucha gained 164 points with 100 comments.
The article makes multiple very strong claims about kids being killed by an Israeli sniper, soldiers with the American accent and Biden's sanction genocide. This is not a journalism.
Btw, this is Al Jazeera's guide to Hamas that they published on Oct 8th, 2023: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-h.... By this time some Telegram channels had already been flooded with videos of Israeli civilians murdered, mutilated and paraded among cheering Gazan civilians.
HN is once again absolutely disgusting on this. Zionism of the SV elites couldn't show itself more clearly, as if the last thread's article was not enough evidence.
I don't want to pick sides in this sad generational conflict and I can see each side has their points but I want this parasitic Israel-US relationship to end.
AIPAC has worked hard over the years to make any politicians with the slightest opposition to Israel to be unelectable. I don't see how that's ok. They pretty much own the US government at federal and state levels. They have passed laws at the state level where boycotting Israeli goods are now illegal (how is that law even constitutional?)
So the first step for ordinary citizens is to make anyone supported by AIPAC unelectable. The billions of dollars / year of aid to Israel, Egypt, etc. that could be spent domestically instead also needs to be cut.
The things I've read about happening in Gaza are horrific.
I'm ashamed that my taxes are funding this. It doesn't feel like there's much that can be done to change that. AIPAC has a very serious influence on our government and I worry that its impact is just leading to more deaths and more suffering.
There is one thing you can do as a tax payer: go on strike. Think of what effect this would have on the federal government's tax revenue as well as the effect on the rich and powerful's incomes if half the country did this.
It feels like a lot of modern countries are built upon the destruction of previous cultures, in one way or another. Just a shame this one had to be SO violent.
Why is Israel’s reaction worse? They seem to be reacting to an unprovoked attack by an openly genocidal neighbor with a pretty big-standard conventional war to eliminate the problem regime.
I’m not saying that Israel couldn’t be more mindful of optics or civilian casualties, but how is this war not justified?
As a percentage of the population, Hamas's attack on Oct 7th killed 6 times as many people as Al Qaeda did on September 11. If you are an Israeli, you are 6 times more likely to know someone impacted by those attacks than Americans did in 2001. As a result of the 2001 attack, the US invaded two countries, resulting in million(s)[1] dead on the other side.
Make no mistake: For any country that has the means, losing 900 people in one day will always be seen as an act of war, and they will respond. While the Israeli response is certainly "disproportionate", it is not by any means an outlier when you compare with typical conflicts around the world.
I definitely think Israel's response should be condemned, but I will openly say: Our government(s) in the US routinely do worse. Let there be perspective.
This war didn’t start on September 7th. It’s been going on longer than any of us have been alive.
The atrocities on both sides are horrible, and I feel sorry for the civilians on both sides who are just trying to live their lives. Unfortunately the Israeli government has all the power here, and they have been completely unable to find a solution over, now, decades.
The blockade of Gaza and expanding settlements in the West Bank are just continually stirring the pot. That government, and Hamas, both have to go.
> Unfortunately the Israeli government has all the power here, and they have been completely unable to find a solution over, now, decades
Unable, or unwilling. The most damaging political assassination in history after Franz Ferdinand was probably when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated because he was too close to a peace treaty.
Part of the problem is that Hamas seized control and isn’t a popular government. Only like 10-15% of the Palestinian population could have voted the last time they had the chance, so there’s a valid argument that the civilians killed are being victimized twice: by the terrorists using them as human shields and by the IDF targeting them anyway.
Unprovoked? Israel has been massacring innocent civilians for over 75 years.
Israel was built just like the US, by massacring native people and stealing their land, which is still happening to this very day, including in the West Bank where Hamas doesn't exist.
I’m saying that the “humanitarian aid” cannot be separated from support for Hamas (or rather, that Hamas will ensure that anything the UN does in Gaza will be to its benefit).
Israel has also been imposing apartheid on Palestinians for years, a fact that high-ranking officials themselves admit [1][2], and which human rights reports confirm[3].
I disagree on the apartheid claim and so does former anti-apartheid activist and South African politician Mosiuoa Lekota [1].
Per Wikipedia, Apartheid is a "system of institutionalised racial segregation", and Israel's citizens include many Arab Muslims and even Palestinians, all of whom have equal rights. Israel's declaration of independence explicitly supported "equality...without distinction of race, creed, or sex" [2]. Arabs are 20% of the Israeli population and yet they are 40% of doctors [3].
The West bank and Gaza are basically separate countries with their own governments. The extremist Israeli settlers should leave those areas since they are not part of Israel, but I am just stating disagreement with the "apartheid" label. The concept of systemic Apartheid is unrelated to a few bad apples occupying and illegally settling in areas outside their national borders.
It's interesting that you are citing a former South African politician who opposed apartheid. I will quote a South African journalist who fought against apartheid, published books about it and defended Israel as a non-apartheid state for many years after moving there. Now, he states that it is indeed an apartheid state.
"In 2001, I joined Israel’s government delegation to the world conference against racism in Durban. The government of Ariel Sharon invited me because of my expertise after a quarter-century as a journalist in South Africa; my specialty was reporting on apartheid close up.
At the conference, I was disturbed and angered by the multitude of lies and exaggerations about Israel. During the years since, I have argued with all my might against the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state – in lectures, newspaper articles, on TV and in a book."
And later he writes:
"In Israel, I am now witnessing the apartheid with which I grew up."
TBF- Mosiuoa Lekota, who literally went to jail with Nelson Mandela, should probably be listened to more than the random journalist you cited.
I read the article though and it basically is saying that right wing extremism in Israel is doing some things reminiscent of Apartheid South Africa. That doesn't sound systemic - more like a warning that people need to stand up to the right wing extremism is Israel. Fair point. But definitely does not lend credence to the claim that there is widespread systemic Apartheid.
I'm not sure I agree with you, in the Humans Right report and Amnesty International report they clearly show evidence for systemic apartheid. Also former UN chief says Israel’s treatment of Palestinians may constitute apartheid [2].
Overview[1]:
"Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, successive governments have created and maintained a system of laws, policies, and practices designed to oppress and dominate Palestinians. This system plays out in different ways across the different areas where Israel exercises control over Palestinians’ rights, but the intent is always the same: to privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians.
Israeli authorities have done this through four main strategies:
Fragmentation into domains of control
At the heart of the system is keeping Palestinian separated from each other into distinct territorial, legal and administrative domains
Dispossession of land and property
Decades of discriminatory land and property seizures, home demolitions and forced evictions
Segregation and control
A system of laws and policies that keep Palestinians restricted to enclaves, subject to several measures that control their lives, and segregated from Jewish Israelis
Deprivation of economic & social rights
The deliberate impoverishment of Palestinians keeping them at great disadvantage in comparison to Jewish Israelis"
I dislike repeating myself but once again, per Wikipedia, apartheid is a "system of institutionalised racial segregation".
That Amnesty article contradicts that definition. It's talking about mistreating people in East Jerusalem, aka The West Bank, which again, is not part of Israel, has its own government, etc. And what is the primary race of those people in the West Bank? Arab. And Arabs comprise how much of the Israeli population? Around 20%. And are those Israeli Arabs being systemically mistreated, as though by apartheid? If they are, then this "apartheid" not only directly opposes Israel's declaration of independence, but it's a strange type of Apartheid that is highly supportive of Arabs becoming doctors at roughly double the expected rate per capita in Israel.
Yes, Israel is treating people differently, but it's not based on skin color or race. It's based on whether they live inside its national borders.
This is a complex and nuanced situation but please try to understand that it's dangerous to unilaterally redefine words the way that Amnesty does in that article. There's a huge difference between widespread systemic racism and some bad apples illegally occupying land outside a nation's borders.
It appears that they do not contradict that definition. Please read this article, where you can find the definitions in the context of the crime of apartheid:
There is a section there about definition of racial discrimination, it's not only about race.
"According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),
the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[17]
This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[18] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin"
To be fair, Israel was doing some bad stuff to them within its borders in the 1960s but "In 1966, martial law was lifted completely, and the government set about dismantling most of the discriminatory laws, while Arab citizens were granted the same rights as Jewish citizens under law".
It seems like the main issue today is treating people differently based on whether they currently live on the other side of a national border. Ex: apparently marriage to an Israeli is no longer a path to Israeli citizenship for Palestinians residing outside Israel- https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-pa...
But many, if not most, countries have policies that similarly punish people outside their borders so I don't see how that is particularly damning for Israel.
And Israel has been editing the equivalent of their Bill of Rights (ie. the Israeli Basic Laws) to grant certain civil rights fundamentally only to it's Jewish citizens.
Have you even read the actual legal text [1] for the Nation-State law? It basically just says that Israel will always retain certain elements of Jewish culture such as the flag, anthem, holidays, and official language. No one is preventing non-Jews from partaking in those cultural artifacts, just like how no one is preventing Mexican Americans from celebrating the 4th of July and no one prevents them from speaking Spanish.
Is every country now required to sing Kumbaya and officially honor every major culture within a 1000km radius? Can they not officially declare that certain cultural things are more important to them than others?
What would happen if that part was removed and 100 years from now, another group tried to claim Israel as their self-determined government?
Every time Jewish people try to be a peaceful minority inside someone else's society, they face discrimination, exile, or pogroms. And it just happens that many government leaders of neighboring countries have repeatedly declared their intention (or heck, literally tried) to mass murder them.
It seems that in Israel there are (very small) quotas for non jewish people to be admitted at university.
I've met muslim israeli who have learnt italian to go to study medicine in italy (where there is a notoriously extremely difficult entrance exam) because all of this was easier than going to a local university.
There are many Israeli (Jewish) students who go to Europe for medical school.
A lot of this has to do with Americans going to Israeli medical schools who take up the space, and it is doubtful this has to do with the individual you met who was Muslim.
Not sure why you would write this, please research.
1. There is actually affirmative action for Arab Israelis.
2. A lot of Israelis (Jewish and Arab alike) go study medicine abroad. You need a near perfect score on the SAT-equivalent exam to get into med school in Israel (not enough spots, too many applicants).
Me, I have personally met people doing it, while being a student myself.
From your link:
> In postgraduate programs, the proportion of Arab students rose 60% from 3.9% to 6.3%.
If you have 0 students and then you get one, it increases ∞%, but sometimes looking at the % in the title, which is just a Δ of the actual % doesn't tell the whole story.
I used to think of the situation as an appartheid too as it seemed to be the most accurate comparison but if found that the more I learned about the situation that that comparison was not helpful at all unless your only purpose is to say that the situation of Palestinians is immoral (which it can be without being "appartheid")
I have reached a point where I question and doubt any news that comes out of this conflict. Both sides and their proxies are waging massive propaganda campaigns. I only feel contempt for the leaders on both sides, and pity for all the regular people caught in the carnage. But of course, their suffering will be fodder for yet more propaganda…
Name a conflict or intervention by the US in that region that has made use of US assets based in Israel. Hint: there aren't any.
We instead use assets in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. Using anything based in Israel would cause more problems than would be solved.
Israel isn't really an asset to the US, it is more of a liability that we tolerate.
Operating out of Israel would be an international relations nightmare for both the US and Israel. We’d not do it if we had any other options (and we’ve always had several, for relevant values of “always”)
We give them aid to prevent another attempt at conquest by neighbors. The other prong of that fork is that we also pay Egypt (check out the list of top US aid recipients over the last few decades) to keep them out of any war-coalition of Israel’s neighbors, significantly reducing any such move’s likelihood of success.
Why we do that, I’m not sure. I’ve not dug enough into the situation to have a solid answer. Anyone can think of some, but I’m not sure what the actual reasons are. I don’t think it’s anything like “to buy a base in the Levant” though.
Bullshit. Isreal has the urban warfare training school where US soldiers, especially spec ops, train in a 1-1 replica of a city. It’s literally one of the most important military training installations in the entire world and you bet your ass that American troops training there are “US assets based in isreal”
That may have made sense once, but we have landed carriers all throughout the ME since before the Gulf Wars. Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman. KSA, Kuwait, Iraq and Diego Garcia as needed. We're not going to ever use an Israeli base to attack Iran so unsure what purpose it serves tactically or strategically. Turkey/KSA are happy to support our projects in Syria.
These facilities are huge, each capable of supporting squadrons of US aircraft.
I would say that US military doctrine has successfully created the most peaceful era in human history as measured by mortality rate due to conflict, and a fundamental part of that is the willingness to confront adversaries with overwhelming force. The alternative is generations of tribal conflicts. Coming from a family with many war deaths over the past several hundred years, I’m thankful the violence ended with my generation.
The military doctrine, plans, aims we talked about publicly were unfortunately quite different from the reality of what happened. I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing - I'm talking about the unnecessary and unjustified invasion of Iraq. Yes there hasn't been a world war - but in Iraq there are continuing tribal conflicts. We didn't create an era of peace there.
With little doubt, the United States broke Iraq. U.S. forces succeeded in the campaign to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein... But what followed turned into a debacle for U.S. grand strategy, and a traumatic nightmare for much of Iraqi society.
The war, driven by the hubris of the Bush administration and a supportive Washington establishment — as well as what has to be described at this point as a vengeful post-9/11 bloodlust that permeated American society — is now widely seen as a generational American mistake. ... According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, many of the 306,000 estimated deaths in the Iraq war were of civilians killed by “direct war related violence” between 2003 and 2019, a span of time that saw Iraq convulsed by waves of insurgencies and counterinsurgencies, and its cities ravaged by terrorist attacks and airstrikes.
The consensus now, even among formerly hawkish Republicans, is that the United States should never have invaded Iraq 20 years ago. ...
“Iraq quickly fell prey to chaos, conflict and instability, experienced an uncountable number of deaths and displacements, and the erosion of health, education and basic services,” wrote Iraqi academic Balsam Mustafa. “Behind the statistics, there are untold stories of agony and suffering. The structural and political violence would spill into social and domestic violence, affecting women and children. With every life lost, a whole family is shattered. From day one, the conditions were forming for the emergence of terrorist groups and militias.”
* 9/11 members were known to be in Iraq (we ignored the significant Saudi presence in actuality for the 9/11 attack)
* In the days immediately following 9/11, the Bush administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq.
* The false claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
* "A study coauthored by the Center for Public Integrity found that in the two years after September 11, 2001, the president and top administration officials had made 935 false statements, in an orchestrated public relations campaign to galvanize public opinion for the war, and that the press was largely complicit in its uncritical coverage of the reasons adduced for going to war.[70][71] PBS commentator Bill Moyers had made similar points throughout the lead-up to the Iraq War, and prior to a national press conference on the Iraq War[72] Moyers correctly predicted "at least a dozen times during this press conference he [the President] will invoke 9/11 and al-Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America."
The most peaceful era? Since WW2 we had, just naming the major ones with US participation, Korea, Vietnam (twice, first the French with US help and the US one), the Second Gulf War, the War on Terror, with highlights in Iraq and Afghanistan (it spanned the globe, earbing the name "global war on terror", and took 20+ years to end with a withdrawal frok Afghanistan). Feel free to count the casualty estimates from wikipedia. Peacefull is sometjing different.
I hadn't watched Al Jazeera before this conflict but now I think they're heroes. You see "reporters" on CNN wearing bullet proof vests by a pool in Tel Aviv while Al Jazeera journalists are reporting on air while they find out their entire family has been killed by Israel. It's incredible stuff and I've never seen anything like it. I've lost all respect for US and western media journalism.
Is there any news source in the world that isn't in some way connected to one of the parties of this war? It has to be a news source that has significant presence in the region so that they have some topical credibility, but also is not located in a country that does any business with either the Arab world or Israel. I'll wait.
There aren't any that would have access to Gaza. If you are reporting from the Palestinian side, much of your data/facts are going to come straight from Hamas spokespeople. If you report from the Israeli side, its going to be IDF spokespeople. The fog of war prevents anything but propaganda from coming out of this conflict.
Note that it is Israel which prohibits international press from accessing Gaza - they monitor the Rafah crossing and have prohibited any journalists from contacting Palestinians via any means available or releasing reporting without going through Israeli censors first. And that there are civilian journalists on the ground who are certainly not “all hamas”
In this summary it shows Al Jazeera as left center bias in general, but with heavily biased reporting against Israel. For this specific topic it is clearly one of the most biased news sources that are still given credibility.
From reading the AJ coverage, you would believe that Israel bombed a hospital and killed hundreds. An inexcusable atrocity, obviously, if it were true.
The US and Israel's story of it being a jihad rocket seems consistent with the explosion. The intelligence assessment that it was dozens not hundreds dead seems much more plausible to me.
The AJ perspective seems to be to treat Hamas claims as valid by default throughout this conflict, which I find concerning.
Al Jazeera was not unique in their short-term coverage - nearly all western outlets also wrote similar articles shortly afterward, based mainly on unsupported statements from Palestinians. As soon as day broke and people saw the actual photos of the impact area it was clearer that attributing the attack to either side would be challenging; several reputable outfits in the US even wrote short postmortems to understand why they did what they did and to prevent it in the future.
They at least have made a strong argument for their case [1]. I don't read this as taking Hamas claims as valid by default because they backed it up with reasoning from their sources. Are they correct? Hard to say for sure, but there's more evidence for it than just "Hamas said this so we believe it."
Their arguments are well produced and cast doubt on the Israeli/American story in every possible way.
But isn't that also what a sophisticated propaganda campaign would look like?
As I said, I watched it unfold live, and my assessment was that they couldn't possibly know there were 800 dead on such short notice. When the sun rose, I expected to see a leveled hospital, like so many other buildings in Gaza. Instead, I saw a tiny crater in a parking lot.
It was then that I learned the "Ministry of Health (Palestine)" is actually a government agency, effectively Hamas. That was the entity that supplied the numbers that drove the headlines that caused so many more problems.
You might think "Who would exaggerate the numbers of dead to cause international outrage!? That's unthinkable!". But they are literal terrorists. This is the playbook.
In the video you linked, they don't show the impact site. They don't mention that the hospital is still very much functioning. They don't show the surrounding buildings not having been impacted. But if you were making an honest assessment of "israeli airstrike on hospital" or "stray rocket hit hospital parking lot", those details make a huge amount of difference.
When it happened, I thought we would see retractions from AJ and other Arab media after the sun rose, but they were continuing to run the "Israel bombs hospital" story while omitting key video and photo details that were widely available on Wikiepdia.
Aljazeera posts high quality documentaries and news articles. It has been much better than US media at publishing news about the Israel Palestine situation. Even the BBC was quite poisoned by bias on this issue. Aljazeera has been the largest news outlet that actually published a Palestinian view also.
I think of Al Jazeera like I think of the NY Times: it's the unofficial mouthpiece of the establishment. I apply my prior understanding of those establishments to adjust what I read into what i believe is a more factual understanding of the underlying reality.
This is an association fallacy.
Every media outlet has an agenda, journalism has standards and you either point out the flaws or quit untrustworthiness allegations.
Respectfully, I think this is poisoning the well. For one, do you think CNN and MSNBC being private organizations clears them from charges of state manipulation, let alone bias? Al Jazeera doesn't purport to hide its biases in this war, and has had way more insightful and urgent reporting on it than any of the western outlets have had -- not least because it's been reporting from the occupied territories*, and hasn't shied away from airing images displaying the extent of the carnage and destruction.
(* edit: even when their families are killed by Israeli bombs)
"Qatar argues that some its critics misunderstand why it hosts Hamas’s political leaders – which is not so much out of ideological sympathy but because the US has asked it to."
What they write in English is completely different to their main audience and internal audience. There's enough information out there to back this up. Go and do some research with this in mind and formulate your own conclusions.
Well, in that case, we should also ignore all Israeli media, US media, and all western media, since they all those countries committed countless atrocious war crimes throughout history, and killed way more people than Hamas will ever kill even if they existed for another 200 years.
But no, you probably believe anything the IDF and Israeli media says.
I think the last good news outlet was BBC before NATO invasion in Iraq. Shortly after, it became a good propaganda machine and many other news outlets adapted their strategies.
Why can't hamas surrender? Why would you grant hamas exception to basic actions such as laying down arms?
Of course hamas can surrender. It involves dropping weapons, raising hands, and submitting to the forces who have you out-gunned. That's how surrendering works.
Surrendering and releasing hostages would go a long way towards the peace that so many want.
Hamas could stop fighting, or it could technically dissolve itself in some nonsense world. But it does not derive legitimacy from overt, visible structures. Polite surrender is antithetical to its existence.
Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict. Let alone the fact that Iran sits there too in the mix
Shirtless men surrendered so others can. Gaza is crumbling so the more shirtless men the better to encourage an end to violence.
Israel should make sure not to disrespect those who surrender if they want more to follow. Maybe incentivise surrender beyond "we will bomb you otherwise". Regarding the shirtless thing, I was surprised to learn Hamas imposed laws ban men in Gaza from swimming topless (wikipedia). Before even getting to military Hamas, the "civil Hamas" has a long list of horrendous attributes.
> 'Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict.'
Where's the benefit of dying or losing resources? The benefit of brutally targeting civilians? Unless we really are dealing with lesser humans? I've seen fictional zombies on TV behave with more restraint than jihad terrorists. Zombies would actually be easier to deal with when confined to an area, not yet spread over the world. IDF are undoubtedly fighting terror with terror, exactly like most of us would fighting against zombies.
> "the more violent the conflict is, the more legitimacy Hamas has in Palestine"
Did you hear that somewhere? It's a troubling position to adopt as it empowers Hamas with a certain immunity and unlimited violence pass. Since when does legitimacy scale with violence? Since never.
Now is not the time to avoid the weeds. Total violence doesn't mean one side is awarded the fruits of legitimacy.
When the child cries: "our house fell on our heads", at some point the opinions why that happened, or opinions what should be done to stop it will be in conflict among Palestinians. In other words, deflation of Hamas legitimacy is an entirely reasonable outcome to expect as more of the world around ordinary civilians crumbles in response to the actions of Hamas.
Your idealism is unrealistic. And frankly very damaging. It would be nice if it worked like you said, but that does not hold up to political science or empirical evidence. Pretending that the world works this way is a losing battle.
Extremist factions whether violent like Hamas or more mundane and local like the far right American politicians benefit from making the status quo worse. Every time they prevent positive change they make extremism more appealing. They do not need to advance their stated goals. They just need to get people more into the mindset of viewing the idealist way of doing things as hopeless and making the extremist way the only path. This grants legitimacy.
Point in case, even in war torn regions, support for Hamas is rising among Palestinians.
I see a lot of similarities between Hamas and other violent insurgent groups.
They are intransigent and will always chose violence over any other more reasonable option[1]. And take decades of concerted effort to stamp out. The Muslim Brotherhood still exists despite decades of efforts to suppress it.
[1] The sad thing is the road of violence is where the Palestinians are weakest. And the road of using shaming is where they are strongest.
The parent comment is discussing a different hospital, Al-Ahli on Oct 17th, vs Al-Shifa on Nov 10th which is the article you're linking to from NYT.
Civilians being injured in a hospital is clearly a tragedy. That's why hospitals normally have protected status during a war and targeting them would be a war crime. However, hospitals (and other protected sites like schools) lose their protected status when they're used for military purposes[1]. That doesn't make the situation less tragic for the civilians. But there's a difference between striking a random hospital because you want to kill civilians and killing civilians while striking hostile forces in the same vicinity that may be actively shooting at you.
There is clearly a Hamas presence at the hospital based on the video. Additionally, there are tunnel shafts in the complex that lead to dozens of meters of tunnels with wiring/electricity connected to the hospital. Granted, the electricity comment is impossible to verify, but the tunnel system is clearly there. I don't have any guesses of who besides hamas would have built/used a tunnel like that.
Hard to tell if this person is affiliated with Hamas or some other group, but it's clearly a combatant at the hospital.
RE the school: It's kind of difficult to tell what has happened. Clearly the school was the site of fighting, but I don't see any evidence in that video showing point blank executions of anybody let alone civilians or infants as was described.
> There is clearly a Hamas presence at the hospital based on the video. Additionally, there are tunnel shafts in the complex that lead to dozens of meters of tunnels with wiring/electricity connected to the hospital. Granted, the electricity comment is impossible to verify, but the tunnel system is clearly there. I don't have any guesses of who besides hamas would have built/used a tunnel like that.
The Israelis are the ones who built the hospital and the ones who built the tunnels, their ex minister said this.
Even their evidence of weapons inside the hospital has been manipulated, they have changed the weapons multiple times while news were reporting on their "evidence". Even so, they said it's Hamas's HQ, but its a far cry of what they claimed, and what an HQ of such a birgade should be. The goal was to just destroy the main hospital in Gaza.
> RE the school: It's kind of difficult to tell what has happened. Clearly the school was the site of fighting, but I don't see any evidence in that video showing point blank executions of anybody let alone civilians or infants as was described.
How about these pictures? Don't they remind you of anything
They have killed more than 20,000 and 11000+ children in three months. This is the largest civilian life loss in this decade, there is nothing even close to this, Ukraine is not close in TWO YEARS.
Gaza in 30 days(outdated statistics) and Ukraine in 563 days.
This was never about Hamas, they are not killing people in the west bank, where Hamas has no control, they just want to kill all Palestinians.
Heck, at the start of their latest bombing campaign, they said "we are fighting human animals", this was never directed at Hamas, this was directed at the entire population of Gaza, the civilians, the doctors and of course the children.
My understanding of this is that the IDF knows that israel built an underground basement level for hospital operations, not the connected tunnel system.
They did claim it was a headquarters. I agree their CGI infographic was over the top and not representative of what was actually there. I dont think we can expect that a hamas brigade HQ looks like a state of the art command facility like you'd expect from a well established military. It's impossible to know exactly what the tunnels were used for in terms of planning / coordination but you previously said there was zero hamas presence at the hospital and I dont think that's a realistic take.
It looks like the photo on the left is the IDF detaining military aged men for processing in the current conflict and the right is the british army detaining german prisoners in WWII.
That's at least what the source above says. I have no idea how accurate it is to be honest, but I dont think i'm following your/the original tweeter's argument on this one. If the intent was to say the picture on the right was germans rounding up jews to put them in concentration camps, I dont think that's an apt comparison as the detainees in gaza aren't about to be executed. I think I read about ~60% of the last batch (the one where the photos went viral) were released after determining who was a civilian and not.
> They have killed more than 20,000 and 11000+ children in three months. This is the largest civilian life loss in this decade, there is nothing even close to this, Ukraine is not close in TWO YEARS.
I agree the civilian death toll is high. I also am not saying the IDF's war plan is 100% in lock step with what I would have chosen but I'm also not in their shoes.
I do think it's worth trying to compare/contrast the two situtations a little more granularly though.
1. Here are stats by month that show much higher civilian casualties in the first months of the war. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1318455/ukraine-war-casu...
2. The ukrainian army isn't dressed in civilian clothing making it impossible to distinguish their casualties from civilian casualties. Best estimates I've seen is ~1/4 of the deaths reported in gaza are combatants. Still that leaves a large number of civilians, not arguing that.
3. The ukrainian army doesn't operate out of hospitals, schools, or in tunnels under the civilian population. Based on our previous back and forth, I dont think we'll fully agree on this point, but I think it's relevant here.
> they said "we are fighting human animals", this was never directed at Hamas
The huffpost article you cite says the comment was made in reference to hamas.
As I said above, I dont think my response would have been identical to what we're seeing from the IDF. I would have pushed to limit civilian deaths more (not sure exactly how) but I would still want to respond forcefully to hamas. You can't move the civilian population out of gaza b/c that's forced displacement. You can't move them fully out of the way in gaza because it's a relatively small piece of land. You can try to move the population to "safe zones" near UN buildings and then hamas fires rockets from 100m away.
I'm curious what your general course of action/goals would have been in response to Oct 7. What options do you have when a hostile force _intentionally_ targets ~1k civilians and additionally brings back 150+ civilians as hostages (my counts roughly excluding soldiers they killed/captured).
Other wars are discussed. There have been threads on Russia vs. Ukraine in recent months.
Perhaps Israel look bad in the press because they are acting badly. It seems to me that Israel are unambiguously the stronger power in this conflict: they have are much stronger military, and additionally have the backing of the US and a bunch of other nations that would step in were Israeli territory under threat. And they are using that power to aggressively attack the weaker power in the conflict with little regard for civilian casualties (“collateral damage”) or proportionality of response.
The fact that Israel is stronger doesn't seem especially relevant. We're not talking about a couple kids fighting during recess. The weaker side isn't automatically right and the stronger side can't be expected to moderate its response when we're talking about the murder of ~1000 civilians.
It's also absurd to think Israel should chill out and let the US handle its defense. As if an occasional murder-raid and constant rocket fire is just something Israel should tolerate because, if the Arabs actually invade again, the US will bail them out.
That aside, Israel should do more to avoid civilian casualties. And it should treat captives better than this story indicates.
> the stronger side can't be expected to moderate its response when we're talking about the murder of ~1000 civilians.
A fundamental principle of the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is distinguishing military and civilian targets, and minimizing harm to the latter. That applies to all sides in every war. [0]
In warfare, generally all sides are outraged, filled with hatred and revenge. They wouldn't be killing each other otherwise. That is not an exceptional situation, it's the norm; that's what the LOAC was written for. 1200 civilian deaths, though absolutely horrible, unforunately also is well within the norm for warfare. 100,000+ have died in places and times, including at US hands.
Obviously Hamas didn't follow that principle (they seem to have intentionally violated it). I can't say how well Israel is doing it, but it's an essential issue. Saying 'we're angry' or 'our people were killed' is not exceptional in warfare and does not create exceptions.
The Israeli army is making a huge of effort to reduce harm to civilians. Including notifying in advance before striking buildings and giving proper time for evacuation of civilians from Northern Gaza. In many cases, Hamas forces Gazan people to stay in the danger zone despite IDFs warnings for people to die in their holy war. It is super hard to act morally when your enemy is using their own people as human shields
The way you put it, it sounds like Israel got up in the morning one day and for reasons no one can understand, decided to start inflicting civilian casualties on Palestinians.
Someone else might say the same about the Hamas attack on October 7th.
As the UN Secretary-General said, "This most recent violence does not occur in a vacuum. It stems from a long-standing conflict, a 56-year-long occupation, and the absence of a political solution in sight."[1]
Whichever side you are on (if any), responding to atrocities with further atrocities is not justifiable. It doesn't matter who commits these atrocities
Do you know Israel was trying to strike peace deals with the Palestinians multiple times and faced stagnation and rejection from their leadership? Also, the only reason Hamas exists is Israel completely pulled out from the Gaza Strip in 2007 letting it be self governed like an independent state. So no, it doesn’t matter what happened 56 years ago. Things have changed, there were many, many opportunities to change course and nothing justifies the horrific vicious terror attack of October 7th.
Your scare quotes are super condescending, but yes, it truly is notoriously complicated. Thousands of books have been written on it, and millions of hours have been spent debating it. Denying that Jews have any legitimate claim to land in the Levant is partisan and false, and it pours fuel on the fire. The only possible lasting solution will acknowledge that both Jews and Palestinians have a rightful claim to (and a need for) a state.
What is so complicated about admitting that Israel is stealing land as we speak, with its colonies in the west bank? Even Israel has no issues with colonizing its neighbors, so it's amazing to see you argue otherwise. It's not a secret.
Also it's amazing how nuance is needed when it's to discuss Israel's war crimes, land grabs, and everything else. But none is required when it's about Palestinians. Do you also say that "it's complicated" when someone talks about Hamas?
Many of the Israelis commenting here are not supportive of the West Bank settlers including myself.
Israel is not colonising anyone. Even the West Bank was occupied in ab existentixal war against proper state armies and violent civilians groups in 1967.
How are they not colonizing anyone when they are literally settling territory that even the state of Israel does not consider to be theirs prior to said settlers taking it? What does a war in 1967 have to do with colonizing in 2023? Or more importantly, why does Israel get to use that as an excuse for being allowed to be aggressive and do whatever it wants? Do you extend that logic to Palestinians too? Are they allowed to use armed resistance since they got kicked out in masse from their homes in the 1940s?
Yes you did. You said Israel was created by "forcefully stealing land." The vast majority of Jewish migrants in the late 19th century bought the land. If you're talking about the 1949 war... well, it was a war, in which the Israelis agreed to the fair UN partition plan, and the Arab states did not. At the very least, "stealing" is a very reductive way to summarize it.
> by saying it’s complicated, are trying to paint a simple picture
But is is complicated! That is actually true, and that's OK!
> in which Israel apparently didn’t do anything wrong
Of course Israel has done things wrong.
> That’s actually incredibly partisan
I am trying my absolute best to make comments in the spirit of HN. If you think it's too partisan to engage with, then I'm sorry, but you should know that I really did try.
> And they are using that power to aggressively attack the weaker power in the conflict with little regard for civilian casualties (“collateral damage”) or proportionality of response.
It is certainly aggressively attacking Hamas, but that's because, despite Hamas being weaker, they've shown themselves capable of invading Israel and killing thousands of citizens.
You write "little regard for civilian casualties", but I don't think that's true - please, explain how you arrive at that conclusion.
And proportionality of response doesn't mean what many people think it means - is' not "Hamas kill X people so Israel should kill f(X) people". It's measured by how many civilians would die while achieving a valid military objective. Destroying Hamas is absolutely a valid military objective - the question is if Israel is managing to do it without a disproportianate number of civilians killed.
I think based on the best-known numbers we have - which place the civilian-to-combatant kill ration at 2:1, meaning 2 civilians killed per 1 militant - I think that this is valid and in-line with similar wars fought by Western countries in the past.
> the best-known numbers we have - which place the civilian-to-combatant kill ration at 2:1, meaning 2 civilians killed per 1 militant
Could you share any source for these numbers?
The majority of the reporting I have seen is that around 17-18,000 people have died in Gaza since October 7 and that the majority have been women and children. If we take that at face value, it seems that we would almost have to assume that the majority of men killed are being counted as Hamas militants. Given that there were assumed to be ~40,000 of these (as far as I can recall) in a total population of over 2 million, it seems unlikely.
- Gazan health authority figures are in the realms of reality given numbers reported compared with numbers confirmed in past conflicts (my inclination here is to assume they are possibly under-counting due to many still buried under rubble - though I could be wrong here and these are somehow already added to the tally)
- 50% are women and children (50% as a conservative convenience given that most reporting I have seen is over 60%)
- No women or children are being counted as enemy combatants (definitely not true - I have seen footage of female Hamas militants during hostage handovers - but again I assume for convenience that their numbers are not significant)
My calculation is that if 1/3 of Palestinian deaths have somehow been confirmed as militants/combatants then of a total of 18,000 that leaves 9,000 Palestinian men that have lost their lives. If the 2:1 ratio is correct then the number of combatants that have been killed must be 6,000. This seems unlikely to me because I cannot see why the 'collateral damage' suffered by the male population should be so different from the wider population when under 2% of a population of 2 million people are Hamas militants (by what I recall was the highest estimate of 40,000 given by the IDF at the outset).
In other words if the total ratio is around 2:1, I think it is highly unlikely that the ratio for the male population is around 1:2. What makes male Palestinians so special that they should suffer so much less collateral damage?
The problem with asking Israel to unilaterally tolerate rocket attacks, invasions, and attempted annihilations, is that that have already been doing that for 70 years. The never-ending attacks are a huge part of the reason Israel's political posture has become so radicalized, and the military response is so intense.
Israel has most definitely not been unilaterally tolerating rocket attacks
Israel has bombed Gaza multiple times, way before Oct 7, it’s killed people in peaceful protests, it has boasted Hamas to avoid a peaceful resolution of a Palestinian state and it continues to expand illegal settlements with the help of the IDF in the West Bank. All of that on top of forcefully taking over the land to establish the country in the first place
If anything, Israel has been the main aggressor, attacker and killer for over 70 years
That’s interesting. I think it’s rich that Israel is a “victim” despite having nuclear arms and one of the most advanced militaries in the world, but there’s somehow still a need to torture villagers-turned-refugees en masse. Let alone the fact that antizionism is not antisemitism.
You can have a nuclear missile in your pocket and still be a victim of a guy with a rock that comes up to you from behind. The idea that Israel can't be a victim because they are stronger militarily is absurd, the whole point of terror and guerilla warfare is to win asymmetrically while being militarily inferior
Palestinian citizens are absolutely victims of this conflict. But there are also real Israelis who have real rockets hit their houses and businesses every couple of years. And it's been this way for decades! These people are absolutely victims. Both can be true.
Over 18000 Palestinians were killed, about 70% of them were women and children. Many more under the rubble. 1.9 millions (85% of the population) are displaced.
And you're calling people antisemitic (how original) because they care about the massacres and ethnic cleansing Israel is committing against Palestinians (who are in fact Semitic).
>According to the UN, over 150,000 people have been killed in Yemen, as well as estimates of more than 227,000 dead as a result of an ongoing famine and lack of healthcare facilities due to the war.
I think the OP point is why is this the only war being discussed, not that war is victimless.
Can you please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618713 and please not comment in this spirit in the thread? You've been crossing well into the battle that we're explicitly asking users to avoid.
I don't say this in a spirit of criticism—I am certain that you have deep and legitimate reasons for feeling the way that you do. But we're trying hard to have a certain sort of discussion here, one that remains within the intended spirit of this site, as expressed at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't find that place in yourself, that's entirely understandable and ok, but please don't post in this thread unless you can.
The same goes for some of the commenters arguing against your position—my moderation point here is certainly not about agreeing with them and disagreeing with you (I add this because I know it can all too easily feel that way).
I'm going to nitpick your comment a bit, but this particular nit drives me crazy.
The term "antisemitic" is well-understood in English to refer to hostility towards Jews. I know the root "-semitic" is in there. Yes, Palestinians are also semitic, but that's not what anyone is trying to communicate when they use the word "antisemitic."
Please don't do it, because it's incredibly trivializing.
Iddan - I get where you're coming from, and it's a very valid criticism to say that the West in general pays far more attention to Israel than to much worse conflicts.
That said, I don't think this is a valid criticism of HN. There have been plenty of threads about other wars, and there have been very few threads about Israel, actually.
I’m a long time reader of HN and don’t recall many threads about other wars, especially in the ME (but I’m open to be proven wrong).
The news coverage of Israel’s war in western media is huge. And while other ongoing wars in the ME, many of them led by dictators that are not even trying to seem democratic or just BTW, Israel gets the spotlight every single time. And HN definitely showed more interest in this than many other bloody conflicts in the ME.
I'm a long time reader of HN as well (to put it mildly). I think we just naturally pay more attention that things that are relevant to us so it seems like Israel is discussed more.
That said, I tried to prove you wrong by searching for stories featuring the word "Ukraine" and "Israel". There's only one story featuring Israel. But then I realized I was making a mistake and searched for "Gaza" as well, and found far more stories.
So, it's kind of hard to say from this quick check, but maybe you're right. That said, I think you're right that HN just reflects the fact that Israel/Palestine is just a far more interesting topic to many people, and especially to people of the US.
I always saw it as the Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing for 75+ years with no resolution. It's a conflict that's symbolic of the deep divide of the historical imperial powers and the Global south that suffered from colonialism. I feel this is why people in different continents of the world react so differently to the conflict and why many find it so interesting.
Could you provide some basis for those claims? I'm not saying your wrong or right, but especially for this situation, we need some reason to believe ...
Generalized bias aside, is the UN similarly biased specifically in officially classifying Israel as a (colonial) occupying force and the Palestinian population as refugee?
The UN is blatantly biased. There are ~50 Islamic states in the UN that compulsively always vote against Israel. These Islamic states have even made rambling and screaming about Israel a mandatory ceremony (Item 7) at UNHRC sessions.
I'm not going to defend Israel's actions of the last weeks, but
Israel cannot be called a colonizer. That's stretching the meaning of the word too far, only for demagogic effect.
And yes, the UN are biased. The number of resolutions against Israel is absurd. From wikipedia: "Since the UNHRC's creation in 2006, it has resolved almost as many resolutions condemning Israel alone than on issues for the rest of the world combined." I don't think any Israeli loses sleep over UN resolutions, nor does it give any Palestinian hope.
Hamas cannot win the conflict with Israel, at least not in the foreseeable future. So they'll keep suppressing Palestinians (because they've got quite a tyrannic regime in Gaza), and do stupid things against Israel. Which then retaliates, and has also taken it as an excuse for other policies.
That cycle is not broken by some contorted, meaningless analysis using fashionable terminology. It will only make enemies in both camps. In a recent interview, John Gray said (about climate change, but it fits here too): "I think that’s the politics of narcissism: “I want to feel good.” But in the meantime, you’re wasting resources and you’re wasting time."
This conflict needs actions by a party with enough power to provoke a change on both sides. Ok, that's my bedside analysis, but the politically correct name calling (colonizer, fascist, terrorist) only widens the divide.
You surely know that pasting a dictionary definition is condescending, but I'll take a swing anyway.
Jews have a legitimate and ancient claim to indigeneity in the Levant. (In fact, this week's story of Chanukkah is about Jews being persecuted and evicted from from their homes in the region by a Greek empire.) Of course, Jews eventually left the region due to forcible diaspora.
Jews are obviously not the only ethnic group with a legitimate claim to the land. At least the following groups can all claim to be native to the land, for some definition of native: Turks, Ottomans, Arabs, and yes, Palestinians.
In a very real sense, the millions of Mizrahi Jews are in fact refugees from Arab countries (especially Yemen and Morocco), who fled persecution to their ancestral homeland.
But calling Israeli Jews settlers -- especially within the UN Green Line! -- is terribly inflammatory, and not particularly accurate.
Israel is emphatically not a colony, and viewing it through the lens of colonialism will lead you astray.
Jews have a legitimate and ancient claim to indigeneity in the Levant. (In fact, Chanukah is about Jews being persecuted and evicted from their homes in the Levant by the Greeks.)
Jews are obviously not the only ethnic group with a legitimate claim to the land. Turks, Ottomans, Arabs, and Palestinians all lived in the area "historically."
In fact, many Israeli Jews are the opposite of colonizers: millions of Mizrahi Jews fled persecution from Arab countries (especially Yemen and Morocco), to return their ancestral homeland in Israel.
Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories.
It seems pretty logical to me that when a state starts illegally extending its borders pretty much immediately after its formation, their neighbors will not be happy about it and will fight back.
No need to be an antisemite to understand this, it's just common sense.
> Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories.
Tell me you know nothing about this conflict without telling me you know nothing about it. Israel was inches away from just having to give the Palestinians their own state. Why then, did Hamas attack just before that? The answer is simple: it is and always has been about removing Israel. That's true for Hamas and all their supporters. They aren't interested in a two-state solution. So don't act like it's about Israel not being a nice neighbour.
> Israel was inches away from just having to give the Palestinians their own state.
I follow that situation pretty closely and my understanding is that it was the opposite: The Palestinians' supporters were about to make deals with Israel - deals they refused to make while Palestinian territory was occupied - and leave the Palestinians mostly in the cold. Interview with Hamas leaders after the attack, iirc, said the same - they were going to be forgotten and needed to put the Palestinians back at the center of the issue. For years before the attack, Israel had openly disparaged and abandoned the two-state solution, and expended settlements in the West Bank (which is supposed to be Palestinian territory under the two-state solution).
Do you have anything that says a two-state solution was imminent?
> don't act like it's about Israel not being a nice neighbour
Could it be both? Hamas did something horrible. Murdering civilians isn't justified (why do I need to type that?) but history didn't start that day.
It was my understanding that a deal with Saudi Arabia would have pushed Israel to a more peaceful solution (see https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302 and others. note the date) like abandoning settlements and such. Hamas would loose it's foothold with some Palestinians in that case.
> Could it be both? Hamas did something horrible. Murdering civilians isn't justified (why do I need to type that?) but history didn't start that day.
You don't. But I typically don't write a whole disclaimer about such trivial things. What I will say though: Hamas uses civilians as protective shields, hides under hospitals etc. to generate outrage. And you can see it working pretty well. Or shooting rockets from the rooftops of civilian's houses. I don't envy Israel: either shoot civilians or loose your own in rocket attacks. There just is no right here, but one plan of action to me looks less wrong than the other.
Talking about history, I don't understand the whole fuzz about this anyway. Jews have been there for thousands of years. There's even a Quran sunna about "allah promised the children of noah the holy land" (or something like that). You'd think that makes it clearer. To me it feels like the deeply entrenched antisemitism of the middle east is just blind rage.
> It was my understanding that a deal with Saudi Arabia would have pushed Israel to a more peaceful solution (see https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302 and others. note the date) like abandoning settlements and such. Hamas would loose it's foothold with some Palestinians in that case.
My impression was that the Palestinian issue was not at all at the heart of anyone's objectives, that some outside powers mentioned it in passing, and that Israel said nothing about it. I read that the Palestinians were very concerned about being abandoned by the world (they already see it that way, but thought the deal would be the final nail), and after the attacks I read that Hamas said that was an impetus for the attack.
> Hamas uses civilians as protective shields, hides under hospitals etc. to generate outrage. And you can see it working pretty well. Or shooting rockets from the rooftops of civilian's houses. I don't envy Israel: either shoot civilians or loose your own in rocket attacks.
That's Israel's argument and I expect it's at least somewhat true, but it's one of those things repeated often but that I haven't seen much factual support for. I don't expect much factual support: Who has access to Hamas planning, witnesses enough attacks, etc. to provide some objective verification? So that doesn't make it true or false, but I still have questions: In densely-populated Gaza, does Hamas have a non-civilian place from which to operate? And Hamas is an insurgency; they can't operate openly (have bases, open formations, etc.) - they would just be target practice for the Israeli bombs. I'd like to see a military expert talk about it.
Israeli partisans like to frame the issue with the last sentence quoted, but they have many other options of kind and degree, and they've had other options for many years. Israel has chosen in the recent past (~ last 20 years) indefinite low-level warfare, which is a self-defeating choice.
I'm mostly objecting to these points. I don't think they represent Israel's real position and needs well, but undermine it.
> Talking about history, I don't understand the whole fuzz about this anyway. Jews have been there for thousands of years.
I'm not sure what fuzz you're referring to here?
Length of tenure doesn't entitle anyone to real estate or the world would be really screwed up: every square meter has had many occupants, especially the Holy Land. It is a popular way aggressors justify themselves - 'it is our ancestral land!' Putin, for example, uses that for Ukraine.
What are you talking about? Israel was attacked by several armies and conquered land as part of a defensive war, that is a completely legitimate capturing of that land.
Hamas statements have said it's about killing Jews and it being the moral duty of Palestinians to do that and sacrifice their children to the cause. It's religious in at least one direction.
It was about land once. I suspect, to throw the exact level of thinking on the table by these people, about as worthy as a meme at this point.
Destroying Israel is different from killing Jews. One is replacing a government, which is not necessarily evil. The other is killing people, which is. Advocating violent attacks is the evil thing he does, not advocating replacement of the government.
What bothers me about many of these discussions is that the two are so often conflated. When somebody carries a Nazi Swastika or calls for violence against Jews, that is antisemitic. When somebody opposes Israel, that is not. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-12/antisemitis...
You're right, destroying Israel Hamas-style (as described in https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-member-says-repeat-attacks-0656...) is different from killing Jews. One involves Hamas re-committing the unspeakable monstrosities of Oct 7th again and again, and another is just regular murder.
Congrats on writing the most ignorantly hateful comment I've ever seen on HN.
> Destroying Israel is different from killing Jews
Israel exists because of the much-repeated global pogroms against Jews. The Mizrahi Jews fled Yemen, Morocco, and other Muslim countries because of antisemitic persecution. Beta Israel fled the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia, which threatened a Jewish genocide. Those Jews had that option because of the existence of Israel, a country located in the ancestral homeland of the Jews.
I sincerely believe that fighting for the destruction of Israel is akin to antisemitism. Because what will happen when the next round of Pogroms and genocides roll around? It's been happening for thousands of years, and as recently as the 70s. Jews need a safe country.
Does that justify taking land from others by force, instituting occasional pogroms on those who are displaced? Europe and North America have countries with stable governments that protect people from violence and accept refugees and allow them to purchase land legally without violence.
Hitchens was brilliant but also seemingly rather unselfconscious of how his atheistic zealotry mirrored the religious dogmatism that he constantly railed against. This is the paradox of religious criticism: the more you accuse of others of ignorant dogmatism, the more you become exactly what you accuse the other of.
I don't look at this as cancelling outrage on both sides, nor justification for violence. If this happened to you in your country you'd raise the alarm, if 10/7 happened in your country you'd send the Army
But someone else's taxes are. Until we can convince both sides of this conflict that they need to love their children more than they hate their neighbor, this cycle will only repeat.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for this one cause. That's not allowed on this site, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. We have to ban accounts that do this, and I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
Please don't post in the battle style in this thread, as I explained at the top of the thread. It's particularly important with this painful and volatile topic.
You shouldn't be doing that generally on HN, either, and unfortunately your comments (as I've been attempting to communicate to you) have swung too far in the flamewar direction in recent months (or maybe the last year or two, I'm not sure). You've been a good HN contributor for a long time before that, so if you'd please revert to status quo ante, we'd appreciate it.
“The Arabs” are a group of societies that have a readily ascertainable position on Israel and to whom the Holy Land belongs. Whether individual members of those societies might dissent from that view is neither here nor there. Individuals are irrelevant to what’s happening in Israel and Palestine.
Inflammatory and polemical generalizations about ethnic groups aren't a good idea here. Even if you don't intend them that way, there's way too much surface area to land painfully on.
> Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
Which in the context of the cited request for 1967 borders and right of return, could read to be an additional call for the right of return of Palestinians to the lands within the Israeli side of the 1967 borders.
I suppose we’re going to take Dan, Beersheba, Gath and Ashkelon out of the Bible now
In 637 the non-urban population of Palestine (incl. Galilee) was still majority Jewish - Justinian had only turfed them out of Jerusalem. There was no genocide in 637.
Furthermore, no one elected Hamas as the restoration of the caliphate and spokesperson for entire Muslim world. They’re actually not Isis.
I didn’t say there was a genocide in 637. But they took over the land, just like they took over large parts of the subcontinent. And it’s whiney for them to act like the victims now. It’s like if Mexico somehow took back Texas and California. How much could we really complain?
I have no problem with Islam’s wars of conquest and civilization. I just find the victimhood mentality that’s been adopted in the 20th century to be undignified for such a culture.
If you think of the current Israel occupation as the latest colonizer in a long line of colonizers throughout the history of Palestine, then the victimhood makes perfect sense. Colonized people often adopt the religion and sometimes even the language of their colonizers. As an example, the Irish adopted the language of the English during their colonization, and the Albanians adopted Islam when they were colonized by the Ottomans. Likewise the Palestinians adopted both the language and (mostly) the religion of the Arabs when they colonized Palestine in 637.
Now when Israel is their colonizer, things are a bit different. Not only has Israel imposed a new language, culture and religion onto their lands, but they have also severely displaced them. No colonizer has done that to the Palestinians in the past, not even the British.
> Now when Israel is their colonizer, things are a bit different. Not only has Israel imposed a new language, culture and religion onto their lands, but they have also severely displaced them. No colonizer has done that to the Palestinians in the past,
Modern Judaism permits conversion but refuses to promote or encourage it, and sometimes even goes out of its way to make it hard (especially some of the more conservative Orthodox). Hence, there has never been any encouragement for Palestinians to convert. It wasn’t always thus - John Hyrcanus forced the Idumeans to convert to Judaism; but that was over 2000 years ago now.
By contrast, Islamic conquerors always made it easy for conquered peoples to convert to Islam, and encouraged it through a mixture of carrots and sticks. The same is true of Christianity.
Possibly, this is part of what sustains the Israel-Palestine conflict; if contemporary Judaism were pro-conversion, many of the Palestinians might have already become Jews by now.
> If you think of the current Israel occupation as the latest colonizer in a long line of colonizers throughout the history of Palestine, then the victimhood makes perfect sense
The Muslims are the colonizers. Israel is just taking their land back. Who built the Temple Mount the Dome of the Rock is sitting on?
What!? No. You don’t get to decide who is colonizing whom. Palestinians have lived on this land for centuries. Yes they were colonized by muslims in the past, but not displaced. They stayed on their land and converted to Islam.
Israelis are not native to this land. Sharing a religion with one of many religions Palestinians have held in the past does not make the land indigenous to anyone except the Palestinians them selves. Just like Roman Catholics are not indigenous to the Vatican, not even the Roman Catholic minority in Romania.
European Jews have been a very real part of European history for dozens of generations. The history of European Jews is indeed a very rich history. They are a culture of their own, some even speak their own Germanic language (Yiddish). They are as European as me (an Icelander) and are indeed indigenous to Europe, not Palestine. The minority of European Jews who migrated to Palestine and later founded their own state on Palestinian lands did so by establishing a colony. This by definition makes them colonizers.
“Who built the Temple Mount the Dome of the Rock is sitting on?” Palestinians did, back before they converted to Islam, back when majority of Palestinians were still Jewish, and probably called the land Judea. Likewise, the Jews built the Temple Mount, back when they lived in historic Palestine. European Jews can claim that their ancestors built the Temple Mount, and they wouldn’t be wrong. In fact they can be proud of their ancestors. However, claiming that European Jews built the Temple Mount, that would be wrong.
This is no different than the question of “Who built the Pyramids?” Egyptians built the Pyramids. When the Egyptians built the Pyramids they practiced a different religion and spoke a different language. Since then they have been colonized multiple times over, by the Greeks, by the Romans, by the Byzantines, by the Umayyad Caliphate, by the Ottomans, by the French, by the British, etc. The Egyptians that built the Pyramids didn’t call them selves Egyptians and they probably didn’t call their land “Egypt”, It was still the Egyptians that built the Pyramids.
First, half the Jewish people in Israel are from the Middle East and Central Asia. Second, Europeans Jews aren’t converts, like European Christians. They’re the descendants of people displaced from Israel by, among others, Arab invaders. They’re returning to their own land.
As a matter of academic interest, when would you say the statute of limitations runs out on the right of displaced peoples to reclaim their ancestral lands? If your answer is "it never runs out," then the descendants of the ancient Canaanites, Midianites, and Amalekites† would like a word ....
† According to the Hebrew Bible, the ancient Israelites violently (and genocidally?) displaced these peoples; see, e.g., Num. 31, Josh. 10:40, 11:15. But it's not clearly established that this actually happened.
Nor does 100% of the Irish speak English as their first language, nor are Palestinians 100% Muslims. The point is that it is not uncommon for colonized nations to adopt the language or the religion of their colonizers, even if the transition is not always—and indeed quite seldomly—complete.
That's a pretty awful comparison, but let me point you to some explanations of why this article spent time on HN's front page today, and in what sense the words "interesting" and "curious" apply to it.
I personally would be curious to find out why that entire industry is on the cutting edge of technology in many respects, such as 4K, 3D, and VR but has completely avoided HDR?
Meanwhile Hollywood and streaming companies like Netflix have embraced HDR, but ignored VR, dropped 3D, and still often doing special effects in 2K!
.png){kind=link}
Instead, ask first whether you can find a place of compassion in yourself before commenting. If you can't, that's understandable, but then please don't post. By compassion I mean something more spacious than angry identification.
I'm not saying that this is the purpose of HN (we're not aiming quite that high) but I do think it's the only way to touch a topic like this without destroying that purpose, which is thoughtful, curious conversation. It may be nearly impossible to relate to such a topic from such a place, but nearly != entirely, and it's part of HN's mandate to try. Consider this an experiment, or perhaps an advanced exercise, in community.