I appreciate that this is on here and I hope we can collectively handle it. Tech isn't isolated from this situation, as difficult as it is to admit and talk about with civility and care. A US military software engineer even self immolated recently in protest of what's happening.
I don't see what's happening in Gaza as being culturally particular to the specific identity groups involved here. It's a very human situation and we are all at risk of falling into these kinds of collective behaviors.
Yeah, there's plenty of relevant tech angles, whether that's Israelis utilizing AI to pick targets while acknowledging they know exactly how many civilians they're going to kill in the process [1], Israeli spyware being used to hack people everywhere in the world, etc.
Strongly disagree. This platform for tech news should not become a place for political posts, nor even for posting regular news headlines. Yes we know that reddit sucks but stop trying to make hn into reddit.
Also the community can't handle it, just look at the handful of comments we already have here.
We know and work with Israelis and former Palestinians, and it is difficult enough to navigate the stresses without the added complexity of each side reading totally different news outlets and never talking about it in the same forums. I always try to handle this stuff at work (and political issues are absolutely part of the lunchtime tapestry that impacts the cohesion of engineering teams) by sticking to the facts, but we need to agree on some shared reality for the facts to be a safe "home base" for diplomatic answers to the tough questions we can't avoid... I think it is very important for some amount of news to leak into the common spaces, as long as we can keep from arguing about it on a level higher than its veracity or importance.
I guess by obtaining a different citizenship and renouncing the original one, but tbh I expect parent poster meant folks who were born in another country from Palestinian parents.
Hardly, a Palestinian has no governing authority allowing it to issue a passport or proof of citizenship. This again is controlled by Israel. So your argument does not hold water.
I found the use of the term "Former Palestinian" offensive. It implies that you are no longer such. Regardless of your citizenship, your ancestry defines your ethnic group. Palestinians are an ethnic group. Those born by parents of said ethnic group are de facto of that ethnic group.
This is the kind of thing I was talking about, nobody can even decide if Palestine exists, so when you say "he used to be a Palestinian" some people think you're trying to verbally erase an entire ethnicity even if you just meant "he got out."
You aren't always defined by your ancestry.
My parents had to emigrate to more human respecting lands, and they still feel they're more part of that land than the one they were born in.
You cannot escape your DNA... Other than American Indians, everyone else in the USA emigrated there. So you can assimilate another culture, but ethnically (DNA-wise) you will always carry your ancestry around, and so will your descendants.
> a Palestinian has no governing authority allowing it to issue a passport
Statelessness is technically illegal according to international treaties, so the lack of specific documentation does not necessarily means lack of citizenship. Besides, acceptance for new citizenship is determined by the new country, not the old.
The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
None of which are being respected.... so I ask again, who is morally reprehensible? and if you are referring to the debunked lies about october 7th, I urge you to read up
There is the legal - armed resistance to an occupation is legal - and there is moral - armed resistance attacking unarmed civilians is never morally right.
Settling occupied territory is neither legal, nor moral. Bombing hospitals is both illegal and immoral, as so many other things the IDF has been doing for the past months. Then there are the crimes committed against Palestinians over the past 80 or so years - it's not because the government is different that your ownership rights can be ignored.
This becomes worse when the governing political parties in question, Hamas and Likud, have charters that exclude the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews. They specifically speak about coexistence, albeit in a single entity called Palestine. There is not language to exclude other ethnicities or religions, only to remove the colonialist movement referred to as Zionism - which is not Judaism.
> FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews.
Oh yes! Still, that's an untenable position. Israel was created so that all Jews could have a state of their own because of the suffering inflicted upon them. There really is no going back on that.
For me, a single democratic and secular state, with a legal framework that protects everybody's rights equally and fairly would be the best possible solution, but that would be a multi-generation effort (about 80 years too late, BTW).
FWIW, Palestine was a country made up of multiple ethnicities and religions. The official languages were Arabic, English and Hebrew. Jews made up 1.7% of the total population at the time. More and more of them were arriving from Europe to live there.
What ruined everything was the Zionist project, which funded land purchases for farms and then only allowed Jews to work on those farms. Essentially, excluding the majority muslim and christian population from an equal opportunity to work.
These exclusionary measure created tension which resulted in the armed and terroristic attacks by the Zionist groups the Stern Gang and Irgun. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stern-Gang)
So yes, they could have lived in peace and were living in peace, but Zionism...
But yet, a single democratic secular state is something that is in the hands of the occupier and their supporters.
The Palestinian Authority agreed to the Oslo Accords in 1993 to create a 2 state solution - why has Israel and the USA dragged their feet? Israel has constantly and consistently broken the terms of this agreement without repercussion. We would not be in this situation now if this was enforced then.
The status quo is already effectively a single-state solution. Israel is the only party with an army, the only party that can elect politicians, the only party with airports and a harbor, and a functioning economy. Israel also has almost total control over Golan, West Bank and Gaza. Why would Israel award citizenship and the right to vote to the oppressed minority?
If the majority between the river and the sea wanted a pluralistic, democratic and secular state it would have happened a long time ago. The status quo is what the people of Israel want (revealed preference by their votes). And Palestinians don't get a vote.
This is a gross simplification. Both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have tried to hold elections, last time was in 2021. The Palestinian Authority actually held local elections in the West Bank that year. However being occupied does not make elections easy. In 2021 in particular the national elections fell through because Israel didn’t allow Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem to participate. Hamas wanted to hold the election despite that, but the Palestinian Authority cancelled the elections.
Hamas was elected almost two decades ago, and Palestinians in Gaza have been occupied ever since by Israel. Yes, they do have a political system, but said political system is not democratically driven. It is driven by the Israeli occupying forces, in ultimate control by Israeli voters. Both the military administration, Israeli politicians, and Israeli voters show no desire to change this.
HN's standard about this question has been stable for many years: some stories with political overlap are both inevitable and in keeping with the mandate of the site. The question, when it comes to the biggest political topics, is which stories clear that bar.
I've posted about this many times, including quite a few explanations specific to the current topic:
Edit: oh, you were asking about comments. In my haste I missed that and thought you were asking about submissions.
There are lots of comments in this thread that aren't flagged, so discussion isn't being prevented. It's true that a lot of the earlier comments were flagged, but that was (or should be) because they were flamebait. It's one of the downsides of internet commenting that the flameiest and most reflexive comments appear first in a thread—because those reactions are the quickest to flare up. Better, more reflective comments always take longer [1]. This goes 1000x for a topic like this one, unfortunately.
It's surprisingly dismissive. It's not that because not all of the comments aren't flagged that discussion isn't being prevented. And the (or should be) does most of the work when you talk about flagged are flagged because they were flamebait.
I'm pretty sure it's not an easy task to moderate HN. But I'm still surprised by the answer here.
Keep in mind that I was commenting about the situation very early in the thread. My comment applies only to the very first comments that got posted—perhaps the first couple dozen—no later.
How do you reconcile HN's political neutrality and the fact that almost every overtly political story that hits the front page about certain subjects[1] are blatantly biased on one side?
I think part of it is the current situation lends itself to more pro-gaza headlines.
For starters the situation is evolving more on that front. Every new action is a potential headline for palestine. On the other hand Israel's position is much more static: They want to prevent the slaughter on oct 7 from happening again, and are using force to do so. That hasn't changed. You can't make new headlines out of it.
Its probably also inherent to the fact that Israel is currently on the offensive, outside of its territory in an asymetrical urban conflict. The optics on that are always going to be bad for the state in Israel's position regardless of how justified it is. Urban conflict is always a bloody mess, same with asymetric conflicts.
When israel bombs a hospital that makes a great headline. Its easy to understand and verify - hospital used to be there, now it is not. Its emotional - everyone knows in normal circumstances hospitals are supposed to be off limits. The Israeli side is hard to fit into a headline - hospital bombed after it became a military target due to use by militants, in accordance with international law and the principles of porportionality and distinction. For starters that is a mouthful to be a headline. It lacks emotional punch because now we are talking about legalese not deaths of innocets. Its hard to understand - most non experts do not know what the doctrine of porportionality& distinction is. Even if they do, we do not know in the fog of war what israel knew when targeting it and if it was reasonable at the time. Even if we did, where precisely the line is can be controversially grey. Its not like there is a huge amount of case law on this. Determing if it was legal would probably require hundreds of pages of legal argumentation. Even then, there is a whole other question of if the line international law draws is the correct one morally, which you could write a book on. Its just very hard to put all that in a news article.
So i don't think it is HN's fault that most of these articles lean more anti-israel. Its just much easier to write about things from that perspective. It is much more black and white and requires much less nuance and context.
This isn’t rocket science. Israel has killed more than 13,000 children in less than 5 months. This is only counting the children. That’s almost 4.5 9/11’s in children alone. And our (Americans) taxpayer dollars is helping sponsor these war crimes.
Israel has one of the most advanced military and intelligence apparatuses in the world. And Palestinians are some of the most surveilled humans in the world. Israel knows where they’re dropping the bombs and the demographics of the humans who live there. No amount of gaslighting the international community and unsophisticated normies changes this fact. There’s no excuse for these war crimes and it’s an utter shame that the West, led by America, continue to allow Israel to use the tragic events of October 7th as an excuse to murder innocent Palestinian civilians (most of whom are children).
Setting aside the fact that these are numbers provided by Hamas, the same people who claimed 500 people died in a hospital Israel bombed but when it was revealed their own rocket bombed it the casualty numbers dropped 10-fold, war isn’t arithmetic.
The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists but doesn’t allow civilians to shelter, it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way but Israel should continue until Hamas is defeated like Germany was.
For the record, it was debunked that it was a Hamas rocket as none of them had that potential yield and still do not. The ordinance for that explosion only had one provenance: the United States.
> Setting aside the fact that these are numbers provided by Hamas […]
This is an unserious argument.
1. The numbers come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, which is indeed “controlled” by Hamas since Hamas is their governing entity.
2. The Ministry has no verifiable history of being wrong on the civilian casualty numbers. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: The Ministry’s numbers have held up to scrutiny in ALL of the previous wars (including scrutiny from Israel) [0].
3. The Biden Administration has corroborated the numbers.
4. Israel hasn’t denied the numbers. In fact, in one report from the IDF a couple months ago, they corroborated the Ministry’s numbers at the time.
5. The same silly argument could be made to dismiss just about anything coming from Israel given their documented history of lying and even manipulating our (American) media, from lies about beheaded babies [1] to pushing propaganda via U.S. media outlets like the New York Times [2].
> The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. […]
This is just a whataboutism and another unserious argument.
One evil act doesn’t justify another evil act. This is as serious of an argument as someone trying to justify slavery in 2024 by pointing to America’s history with slavery.
> The Ministry has no verifiable history of being wrong on the civilian casualty numbers
This is laughable. They claimed that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 people that the Palestinians themselves bombed. You are either hopelessly biased and unserious or uninformed.
I'm afraid you broke the site guidelines repeatedly and very badly in this thread. That's not ok. You're welcome to make your substantive points while respecting HN's rules, and indeed they will become more persuasive if you do so. But please, no more snark, name-calling, personal attacks, or flamewar posts—no matter how right you are or feel you are, and no matter how divisive the topic.
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
Even Human Rights Watch (anti-israel propaganda outlet at this point) has said it was a Palestinian rocket:
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
That's not what "debunking" means. It's an article that disputes the current consensus that an errant rocket from Gaza exploded in the hospital. Having the debate is fine (if it's on topic), but preemptively declaring the debate over, misrepresenting the consensus on the issue, and accusing those asserting the current consensus of "misinformation" is disingenuous, and you can't do that and still be civil.
> Setting aside the fact that these are numbers provided by Hamas
The UN and Lancet [0] believe the numbers are credible. Let's not forget there are likely 10k+ civilians still burried under rubble too.
> Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists
Come on, you are not commenting in good faith. There is zero credible evidence that any rape took place, Hamas have staunchly denied it, and from what returning hostages have said it seems incredibly unlikely. There is however an abundance of evidence that Israel is trying to use rape as attrocity propaganda.
> it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way
This is absolutely absurd - it's like telling a domestic violence victim it's their own fault.
You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened?
“UN team says rape, gang rape likely occurred during Hamas attack on Israel”
UN: “The mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurred against some women and children during their time in captivity.”
> You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened
Firstly, the latest figure from Israel is that 695 Israeli civilians were killed, with the rest being security forces. Of those 695, many were armed settlers.
Secondly, the fact you assume rape did occur, especially in the total absence of any evidence, is bizarre, and suggests you may have some deeply-seated biases against Palestinians and/or Muslims.
As I explained in another comment here [0], the UN report is a farce insisted upon by Israel to aid in laundering their lurid attrocity propaganda. The report is not the result of an investigation, it simply regurgitates what Israel presented to Pramila Patten. From the report:
> As a result of the aforementioned challenges, it must be noted that the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of United Nations entities operating in Israel, as well as the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate
Interesting that it does not bother you that Israel has been indiscriminately bombing civilians BEFORE October 7th as well as engaging in night raids all over the west bank, resulting in one of the deadliest years for Palestinians in the West Bank - again BEFORE October 7th. But somehow, their lives are worth less than the ones tragically lost on October 7th?
Second, as an occupier, there are no internal border. As the United States and Israel do not recognize a Palestinian state, they did not cross a border, they broke out of their concentration camp.
“In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified,” the report concluded.
> has been indiscriminately bombing civilians BEFORE October 7th
What do you think Hamas firing rockets into Israel is doing?
> their lives are worth less than the ones tragically lost on October 7th?
No. Equal. We need a framework that stops cycles of retribution and saves the most lives long term. Probably imposed by an international coalition since it's easily observed that groups of people obviously respond to massacres against them with more retribution.
> As the United States and Israel do not recognize a Palestinian state, they did not cross a border, they broke out of their concentration camp.
Are you going to treat the invasion of Taiwan the same way? Since US "doesn't recognize it," it's fair game for them to butcher thousands taking Taiwan?
Concentration camp is ridiculous hyperbole. Gaza is dense overall but half of it isn't https://maps.app.goo.gl/hNEpzVno4z5n9WQH9 . Do you expect the Israeli's to currently allow Gaza to freely trade and receive as many weapons as Hamas desire? Egypt supported the blockade. October 7th would've been 5x worse. Strengthening Hamas' weapons just extends this horrid conflict. Israel was relaxing the travel restrictions and more people were border crossing until Hamas attacked. What kind of message does that send to Israel about letting their guard down?
How do you propose to fix this? You want a ceasefire and Palestinians integrated as Israeli citizens in a 1 state solution? There is no will for this from Hamas. Their 2017 charter wants 1967 borders, your "concentration camp," yet they attack outside of it.
I abhor any rapes perpetuated against humans of any kind. Why are you deflecting my correction that GP’s “There is zero credible evidence that any rape took place” is wrong?
"The Grayzone is an American fringe,[7] far-left[19] news website and blog,[23] founded and edited by American journalist Max Blumenthal"
"It is known for its negative coverage of American foreign policy,[1][4] misleading reporting,[25][26] and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes."
Again debunked, the UN investigation did not speak to any victims or physicians that would validate the claim. The claims came from organizations known to have lied in the past. Why would Israel forbid the doctors involved from speaking to the UN?
Just to make things clear. Few people are denying that sexual violence did occur. These were a bunch of men doing a bunch of violence to other people, I would be shocked if none of them did sexual violence.
What people are debunking is the notion that Hamas used sexual violence as a weapon of war. There are no evidence for that (nor for sexual violence at all, it is just that it is very plausible). And the use of such stories in propaganda purposes.
This is in contrast to the Israeli military who has been recorded using sexual violence as a weapon of war against Palestinians on multiple occasion.
What makes this disgusting, is the use of stories of sexual violence to propagandize anti-Palestinian sentiment. Sexual violence is a horrible crime, that is truly horrendous for the victims. The victims of such crimes deserve better than their horrors being used to justify other crimes.
There are no confirmed accounts of rape, and the NYT Hamas hit piece that is re-laundered daily by the MSM has signs (such as Anat Schwarz) of Israeli intelligence all over it.
Regarding the UN report, it is not the smoking gun you seen to think it is, though I can see why you'd think differently if you only read the "highlights" from MSM - go ahead and read the report [0]:
> As a result of the aforementioned challenges, it must be noted that the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of United Nations entities operating in Israel, as well as the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate
Pramila Patten didn't "investigate" anything; she previously said on this: "It's not my role to investigate" - her job was to repeat what the Israelis told her. While in Israel she even met with proven hoaxers from Zaka, the organisation responsible for spreading many of the putrid attrocity propaganda that came out at the start.
Pramila Patten also infamously made the incredible, unsubstantiated claim that Russia gave their soldiers viagra and sent them out to rape Ukranains. She's a well-known fraud [1], who now sits in a position created by Hilary Clinton - who herself infamously spread false rape propaganda about Libya.
I feel we are now at an impasse, and so I won't be engaging in this thread any further.
> Is there a number of civilian casualties after which Israel is not allowed to keep fighting to eradicate Hamas?
Murdering over 13,000 children not only does nothing to “eradicate” Hamas, it does the opposite: It creates more Hamas-like groups. All of these women and children Israel has murdered have families, friends, etc. who miss them and will be even more determined now to avenge their deaths.
Isn't the logical extension of this supportive of complete genocide? I don't care about either side in this conflict, but I fail to see how anything short of genocide stops this.
This is what I see:
P: Hamas attacks civilians
I: Responds by saying that this is will never happen again, and they will put their youth into urban combat to ensure it never happens again by eradicating Hamas
P: Engages in urban combat via insurgency, including using civilians as human shields
I: Continues to try and eradicate Hamas. Civilian shields are murdered.
H: If you keep killing civilians, you'll only make more of us!
I: Then come out and fight!
H: No! Keep killing our children.
At some point you have to place the safety of your population over the safety of another population that is currently murdering your civilians and actively stating they want to continue doing so. Plus to my knowledge P still has hostages that they refuse to release.
The problem with your breakdown is the implication that this all started with October 7th, as if Hamas is simply a terrorist group that attacked Israel, unprovoked, for no legitimate reason. I know this is the narrative Israel wants everyone to believe, but the reality proves otherwise.
If the average American had to live for even just a full week under the conditions that Palestinians live under, they would categorically classify the Israeli government and the IDF as the terrorists. I mean, Israel literally has, as a political and military strategy, the concept of “mowing the grass” [0] [1] to periodically terrorize Palestinians and they aren’t even particularly subtle about it.
My phrasing was specific to the Oct 7 attack because that event was the provication of the current conflict.
Despite policies like "mowing the grass" being catalysts for the Oct 7 attack, my point is that Isreal has stated a clear objective: elimination of Hamas. Their terror tactics are described in the Wiki link you provided appear to be supportive of that goal too.
Hamas has also stated a clear objective so far as I know: destruction of the Isreal state (potentially also of all Jews, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say just the state).
I'm undereducated on the issue, but to me it seems that there is no reconciliation of these goals. They are not simultaneously achievable.
My estimate is this conflict could end today if Hamas conceded. What would become of Palestine is a different matter. Their current authority, the PA, seems to have a policy of paying familes for insurgent deaths. Isreal probably won't want them running the show,and they definitely won't want Hamas running it. Other bordering countries like Jordan and Egypt seem to want nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian children appear to be raised to hate Isrealies and are taught to murder, perhaps justifiably (and maybe this is wrong and only propaganda).
I want this fixed, and I can see a path forward where Palestine embraces sovereignty and becomes a mecca of the world by operating as a tax haven for businesses. But in order to do that they need to determine their goal is peace, and ally with other countries for protection against Isrealie aggression. But that is a hard path forward when starting at current state, including the world view held by Palestinians.
And maybe I'm entirely wrong in this post. But my GP post was specific to my perceived, orthogonal objectives of both sides.
Unfortunately, you lose the privilege to call for an end of war when you've (at some point in time) been in the position of the aggressor. War, in itself, is not a number game. You can't just expect the defender of the current conflict to return the favor by doing exactly as much damage as the aggressor did. War is a means to an end and by initiating aggressions, you have to face the very real possibility that the intentions of your opponent may not match your own.
The saw the wind and now reat the worldwind reasoning? Already deeply flawed back when Bomber Harris came up with it.
Yes, once your initial defence is sucessful, you have no justification to turn around and become the aggressor. This is real life and not a game of Civilisation.
In more specific terms regarding the conflict in Palestine: How dar do you want to go back to define the "original" aggressor? Which is utterly pointless, because being attacked is no carte blanche to use whatever means and do whatever you want with the, very loosly defined, "enemy".
Why did they take hostages? Because it was a terror attack?
And no, of course there is no threat if suoerior military starts levelling the city around you, why would that be dangerous in anyway...
By the way, the IDF already killed three hostages waving white flags. Nice rescue operation, I have to admit. At least now those hostages are safe from both, Hamas and the IDF.
Like when they said there’s no tunnels. Then tunnels were found. So everyone’s like no it’s an elevator. Turns out it’s not an elevator. But it wasn’t used. Full of chairs and bed. But there’s no guns. Tunnels are blocked. But they aren’t in use…
Or when they said Israel bombed a hospital and 500 were dead. Then the photos and videos came out and it was Hamas missile and it was in the parking lot with a tiny crater.
Or when they said Israel bombed the Egypt trucks bringing supplies to civilians. Then the videos and photos came out and it was the civilians intercepting the trucks for food because Hamas steals it all.
Yeah let’s believe everything Hamas tells us haha. Brainwashed by the media to believe conspiracy theories. You probably support Russia too.
If Russia is attacked and defends itself, respexting international law and not commiting war crimes, yes I absolutely support them. They din't, so I don't.
I don't believe Hamas, nor the IDF. I tend to believe UN investigations of past conflicts around that very question, and those didn't find evidence.
And the Hamas stealing food is such a twisted take, it almost is lying.
What I do not support is war xcimes, ethnic cleanising and the suffering of civilians. Regardless of who is doing or causing it. You on the other hand, I'm not so sure.
Thousands of Palestinian hostages? What are you talking about? Please clarify, as I assume you are not talking about prisoners convicted of terror activities.
I think OP osbreferring to the 160 children and over a thousand Palestinians held without charges in Israeli prisons as of April 2022. Just a guess so.
Not that it justifies the Hamas attack, but it goes a long way explaining it.
Yes, such as "throwing stones" at armoured vehicles - truly despicable! Many are held without charge too. And many are held under "administrative detention", which means they can be held in a dungeon, without charge, forever. These are not the actions of a modern, progressive, democratic country.
I'm sure that some are imprisoned for good reason, buy many are there for spurious reasons - and none of them should be tortured or subject to sexual abuse, regardless of their supposed crimes.
You are moving the goalposts and reaching. Administrative detention is used on Israelis too, this is not the argument here.
Those released in the latest exchange and in the Gilad Shalit exchange were convicted, many of which had innocent blood on their hands.
Hamas isn't looking to correct the Israeli justice system, and you are calling actual and attempted murderers hostages...
> Those released in the latest exchange and in the Gilad Shalit exchange were convicted
Yes, and the list of crimes was made public. Many of them were indeed "throwing stones".
As I said, some are definitely held because of terrible crimes they actually committed; however, it must be noted that Palestinians are tried under an apartheid system, by a military court. Furthermore, it seems that many are held for no good reason, and many are tortured or sexually abused - confirmed by human rights groups.
BTW, if a convicted prisoner dies before they complete their sentence, they keep the body on ice until the sentence expires - that is just... evil.
Way, way back there was an IDF officer who said, in TV, after having a Palestinian boys arm broken something along the lines of "he wont throw a stone with that arm any time soon".
I hope that this is not the standard we hold, because if it is, there is no moral ground anymore to stand on when it comes to denouncing terrorism.
Police brutality isn't something specific to this region (IDF is policing in the west bank), or to Palestinians in the region. Hamas murdered and kidnapped hundreds of civilians to protest this?
I think it's pretty clear that Hamas would prioritize the release of a high ranking terrorist with civilian blood on their hands over someone that may be wrongfully detained.
Yes, Hamas attacked, killed and kidnapped people in a terror attack to protest this. Also to have hostages to exchange for some of their own. And yes, these "own" are Hamas members and not the innocent bystanders. Was there ever any doubt about this?
None of that justifies, again, the levelling of Gaza, the starving of around 500,000 people and the deliberate targeting of civilians who have nothing to do with any of that.
You what works? Identifying the purpetrators, prosecuting and convicting them. If you want to go ultra tough, use Mossad to go after Hamas leadership. Heck, even using precision strikes at Hamas leadership in Gaza wouod be better, regardless of the related colleteral damage and casualties. Israel is not doing any of that, Israel started levelling Gaza right south of the border and continue southwards, hoping people flee to Egypt which would allow Israel to close the doors behind them. There is a term for this: ethnic cleansing. That is undefensible, period.
No, the term is ethinic cleansing. In war there are rules regarding civilians, rules Israel ignoring. And no, (in)actions by the enemy do not give the otherside a justification to do whatever they want. Rules and laws still apply during war.
I tired so tryong to get that point across to people. And worried what that attitude might mean for the future.
Israel gave civilians weeks to leave areas of fighting and warns them ahead of time before attacking. This is not ethnic cleansing no matter how many times you repeat the phrase.
Presence of civilians does not render an area illegal to attack. Using civilian cover to initiate attacks is a war crime, not wearing uniforms is also a war crime - both things Hamas does. Using civilian buildings for military purposes makes attacking those areas legal and within the rules of war. You don't get to change the definition of words or invent laws of war when convenient to attack Israel.
>You what works? Identifying the purpetrators, prosecuting and convicting them. If you want to go ultra tough, use Mossad to go after Hamas leadership. Heck, even using precision strikes at Hamas leadership in Gaza wouod be better, regardless of the related colleteral damage and casualties. Israel is not doing any of that
ah, yes, it's that simple, just press the magic button that makes all Hamas disappear and all uninvolved civilians live well and prosper...
To me it seems that if those who care about innocent civilians were more focused on demanding Hamas to surrender and release the hostages promptly would be do more to save lives than constantly criticizing Israel, which gives Hamas hope they can survive this (and do what they did again later on)
Right now only one side is doing the blowing things up stuff: Israel.
You know what makes, maybe, Hamas go away? Open and free election, a cease fire followed by a peace treaty followed by international recognition of Palestine as a nation with free access to the sea and everything else that entails. With a neutral, demilitarized zone between Israel and Palestine, a zone save guarded by an international force with a very robust mandate. Because by know, both side need to be seperated to avoid future conflict. That would also mean a full review by an international court of all sentences by Israeli military courts against Palestinians, in cases a general amnesty is not applicable.
Oh, I almost forgot: A rebuilding plan for Gaza and other Palestinian territories. A massive one, comparable to the Marshall Plan after WW2. A plan in which Israel would have a keen interest in paeticipating if peace is the goal. Oh, yes, and a complete abandonnent of Israels illegal settlement policy and the settlements.
In exchange for Israel recognizing all of the above, and international support of that, the new Palestinian nation agrees to recognize Israel as well.
How does that sound? Not magic, I know, but something that worked in principle in Northern Ireland for example.
the point here is that stone throwing kills people, it’s not a joke. so the policy of it being illegal and punishable is not a "crushing" or "hate crime" and definitely is not "hostage taking".
If peopel are properly, as in a proper, fair and unbiased trial, based on equally fair and balanced laws, convicted, sure, you are right.
Holding people without charges is defenitely not that. If it were, whatever Russia is doing with people opposing the war Ukraine would totally swell as well. And it isn't.
You onw what else kills people, and is illegal by international law? Throwing bombs on civilians. Espesially if said civilians didn't do anything.
Restraint is the word and appriach that would allow Israel to project strength and maintain support. What Israel is doing now is a) butthurt and pathetic and b) a despicable disregard of human rights. No amount of stone throwing justifies, or explains, any of that. At best using stome throwing as a justification is excusing conduct that amounts to war crimes. And I hope we can agree those are unacceptable, regardless of whom and which conflict. They happen as it is way too often, if we accept them as justified onxe, we risk opening a door to a place everyone is ok with conducting war in a criminal way. Infor one don't want a world like that, the last time rules of warfare were systematically ignored by everyone, it was incredibly ugly.
> Those who embrace this view fail, however, to explain how it aligns with the inherent right of self-defense
That's quite a rich comment in light of the Dahiya doctrine. It's times like these that I'm glad HN won't let you delete comments for posterity's purpose.
> what scope of military action is necessary to secure the safety of the Israeli population from the Hamas (and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) threat emanating from Gaza?
When you define it like that, literally any military action, up to and including the destruction of all of Israel and it's inhabitants (a-la Samson option) is excusable. The "we have to go to their country and kill them all to protect our way of life" mindset is the fascistic seed of genocide.
Nobody is going to play by that definition. You're delusional if you think the scope of a perceived threat justifies the intensity of an actualized retaliation - it's a misunderstanding of strike warfare. The laser-focus on total war has impaired the IDF's ability to respond to precision threats in a dignified way. It's impossible to argue that Hamas hasn't exploited this obsession, and it's destroying foreign support at an unprecedented rate. You can only massacre so many Qibyas before your government's long-term strategy comes into question.
> Indeed, it is likely that historians will question whether Israel exercised unnecessary restraint up to this point
Here's a thought-exercise for you; how does the world look at America for developing the nuclear bomb? Do you think they love us, for subjugating the world under the ironclad-rule of a nuclear age? Do you think historians criticize America for showing too much restraint in Nagasaki?
Food for thought, may it nourish your starving soul.
> Sometimes I wished HN had an "ignore user" button
FWIW, there is a "mute" button, but it still allows Hasbara drones to harass you, claim you're a terrorist supporter, antisemite etc - you know, the usual slander they resort to once facts are in the way. The level of denial and falsehoods coming from pro-Israeli accounts is awful, especially here, a place renowned for inspiring curiosity and research.
Today is the first day I've wished for an HN block button too :(
For the record, you do not have to occupy 100% to be an occupier. If you push the current residents out of their own homes and lands and occupy said land, you are an occupier regardless of the amount of land you occupy.
The fact still stands, Israel has occupied Palestine since 1948.
If said illegal/legal immigrants took up arms, killed my population and declared a separate state in what was my state, then yes. But people crossing a border illegally just makes them immigrants without immigration approval.
I think it's a legit concern and it worries me too.
We can only go by the articles that users submit, and then only the subset we see, which is a function of (a) randomness and (b) users bringing specific cases to our attention. If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with. Why might that be? Well, there are a lot of possible reasons and people would most likely dispute about those as much as they do about the underlying topic.
For what it's worth (which may not be much), all I can tell you is that we want deeply, and are trying hard, to be even-handed. At the same time, we're not going to apply some sort of mechanical both-sides balancing because, although it might make things superficially easier in the short term, I don't think it would be in the spirit of the site, and we don't do that about anything else.
The even-handedness I'm talking about is probably easier to notice in our moderation of comments, so far, than of the articles. I feel pretty confident that we've done a good job of that [1], more than I am about the articles. Perhaps that's because there have been thousands of comments, but only a handful of frontpage articles, on the topic. One consistent lesson of HN is that you can't draw general conclusions from a handful of datapoints. It takes a lot more than that before reliable patterns show up.
What matters to me is that there be principles underlying the moderation and that these get applied equally. This isn't fully achievable because there's always interpretation involved—we don't get every call right. But I think the principles are the right ones for HN (I've explained what these are in the links mentioned above), and I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
I don't know how satisfactory this answer can possibly be but I hope it's at least clear that I hear you and care about the question.
[1] That is, when people break HN's rules in the comments, such as by posting flamebait or snark or personal attack, we flag and/or reply and/or ban irrespective of what the commenter is for or against. It might not appear that way to many readers who have strong passions on a topic, but it's not as hard to do as one might assume, especially after 10 years of practice.
"If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with"
This really cannot be understated. HackerNews draws an educated demographic, which generally tends to be centrist, perhaps leaning a bit to the centre-left. Remember, this is based on demographics. Individual exceptions will occur but do not prove the rule.
The uncomfortable thing about political discussions is that most (not all) of them occur over things for which there isn't a clear-cut scientific consensus. If something is truly clear cut and self evident, then it usually won't turn into a political issue. You can set up an argument that is unassailable from one viewpoint but which crumbles from another. Two people who are reasonable and logical can have stark disagreements over political issues because of how they approach the issue. When people we respect and admire express political views that do not match our own, it can be disquieting.
The most important thing is to maintain respect for each other, even when we disagree. Political discussions on HackerNews usually don't descend into flame-wars, and I appreciate that. Perhaps you've hit on something important by limiting the frequency of such discussions. If they occur infrequently enough that they aren't a constant irritant, perhaps its easier for participants to keep their cool.
FWIW, it's also easy to claim HN is biased, because people are biased differently, and HN is close to global.
As a northern european, I for instance would say that I often find HN trend conservative, compared to the discourses in my country. But someone from a different part of the world could claim HN to lean progressive, based on their political environment.
So I don't think there is an easy way here. If one were to decide that HN should balance both-sides, who draws where the middle lies?
I agree with you. From my Southern European perspective, I don't find this site particularly "progressive" at all. I would describe most of the comments as liberal or centre-right.
And indeed, there is no solution here other than to be tolerant of other opinions, which may come from very different contexts than your own.
american foreign policy often becomes european union migration policy. just remember that, for example, when discussing international affairs.
Having said that, I have to say that HN is one of the communities that is better at dealing with different opinions, from different places. It's much harder on Reddit. On Metafilter, it is absolutely impossible: anything far from mainstream American liberalism is considered taboo.
The only thing I'd add to your point is that while HN is certainly global (or let's say highly international), the community is still overwhelmingly from Western countries. (Not all hold pro-Western views, of course, but that's different.) This means that users from non-Western countries who want to contribute views that go against what is commonly believed in the West, have a hard time. We do what we can to help, but unfortunately it's not much, because the forces of large numbers and group psychology are unstoppable, especially together.
I like when people take issue with me, shame it rarely amounts to much more than the subsequent chaos that ensues because humans refuse to resolve their differences via communication.
dang - Productive and honest public discourse is arguably the most important issue in the world right now - arguably our greatest need. And that seems to depend on moderation.
Ideally, with sufficiently effective moderation technique any groups could be brought together and talk it out. We'll never reach that ideal but my point is, moderation has incredible potential value.
You've done a good job of it here, you're thoughtful about it, probably you have studied and learned more than fits in HN comments. You might do whatever research remains and write a book. I hope you will!
> I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
Probably you've thought of it, but it's not even-handed when strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others. OTOH, I appreciate that hot topics get a different level of scrutiny.
Because you ask, I'll lay it out in more detail. But it's a general point that might not even apply in these cases (it's only two mod actions and so not a lot of data points) so I don't mean to over-emphasize it:
The two changes you listed and I quoted, while I think they improve the quality of those OPs, resulted from a level of scrutiny that seems higher than what most OPs receive.
Imagine Vim and Emacs users were again at odds. And imagine that Vim users raised every possible objection to Emacs OPs, resulting in a lot of extra scrutiny of the Emacs posts. Even if each mod action was even-handed, overall the actions wouldn't be even-handed between Vim and Emacs.
But as I said, the Gaza war is a very hot topic and extra scrutiny seems like a good idea. Anything that cuts down on unsubstantiated claims seems especially good.
Thanks for the response. I guess i just don't understand why some political stories make it through, when the vast majority (like this one[1]) are rightfully flagged.
If you look at the links I listed in my GP comment, I've posted quite a few explanations of how and when we turn off the flags on an article. If there's a question I haven't answered there, I'd like to know what it is.
There are things sometimes that don't have two sides to balance out perspectives.
Not a lot of them, but there are for sure.
Difficult conversations often require the ability to reflect and contemplate on one's own understanding before being quick to validate it and reinforce it by putting it on others.
Saying something is biased on one side and therefore wrong or unfair is incorrect because it denies the idea of objective truth.
If there is no such thing as objective truth, then nobody has any foundation upon which to make any judgements, and therefore power alone becomes the ultimate arbiter or conflict.
The idea that there is no objective truth is a core tenet of fascism.
So in a "curious" place you would expect openness to new explanations, but you would also expect one-sided-ness because there is an objective truth to approach and the purpose of curiosity is to approach that truth.
If there is no objective truth, there is no reason to be curious.
If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to complain about one-sided-ness because what matters is our best approximation of the truth.
A quote from Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder's book: On Tyranny
To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.
If nothing is true, then no one can criticize
power, because there is no basis upon which
to do so. If nothing is true, then all is
spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for
the most blinding lights.
With many social networks, we have many platforms to discuss politics directly. IMHO, HN should keep to tech and not politics, with an exception of politics related to tech (eg. EU trying to destroy e2e encryption,... again,... government hacks, etc).
We have literally everywhere else to pick sides and point fingers.
When people talk about "politics" they aren't talking about it conceptually. They are talking about the myriad of controversial topics that are fiercely argued about by state political leaders and prominent political parties. But that's a mouthful so we call it "politics".
Using the common meaning of "politics", it's very easy to sort the majority of subjects into "politics" and "non-politics".
> This platform for tech news should not become a place for political posts, nor even for posting regular news headlines.
What's a political post? What's "regular news"? And where do you draw the line? If not interested, you can just move on and ignore. There's plenty of AI articles all over the front page.
What is the appropriate number of times to "just move on and ignore" before finally deciding to say something because the integrity of hn as a platform is at risk?
The latter. There are two recent topics that ended in flagging and really low quality doscussions, no curiosity, no open mindedness and sometimes utter disregard of human rights: Caste based discrimination and the war in Gaza. The latter usually has "pro-Gaza" submissions flagged even faster than the former had for stuff critizing castes and caste based discrimination.
I am torn, in the one hand those discussions are often rightfully flagged for the coments themselves. On the other hand, this shows a general social development I don't like, especially since HN used to be, or at least is suppossed to be, a place where even hairy topics can be discussed. And I think the "tech" community at large would only benefi from multiple views on those subjects.
There are not multiple views on subjects, that part is subjective, per se. There is objective truth which this site is trying to prevent via flagging and other ways to limit discussions. The whole point around HN is about tech news etc. is BS, to me at least, as there is no way to disentangle anything from politics as we live in the world ruled and controlled by such interests.
To be fair I would think a story about a huge corporate exec talking to stuffy congress would be the exact opposite of hacker news. Hackers don’t care about policy or stiffs in suits. Post open source software and projects involving actual hacking instead.
Add some faith (belief without proof, we all do it, and can't recognize it in ourselves or other ingroup members) and you are good to go...provided current planetary results are okay in your books I suppose.
Maybe it's not a matter of who we are, but who we should be?
Easier said than done? Oh yeah, we're soft and lazy from a life diet high on - literally - coconvenience.
Put another way, when we collectively decide "we can't talk about X or Y" the control of that topic gets outsourced: outsourced to "leaders" who evidently are less capable.
In short, yes there is risk. But the alternatives consistently qualify as insanity.
By reading the comments on this post I have learned about non-central hypergeometric distributions - which I didn't know about (and turn out to be relevant to a bunch of problems I am thinking about for my job).
HN readers and contributors at least try to think of themselves as the grown-ups in the room. So, by having conversations about contentious topics in a civilized and respectful way, we learn things.
For me this article raised a estimation problem that I deem as interesting as the German tank problem[1]. I took a crack at it. Wish to see what people with better statistical knowledge than me think of the data and the conclusions. I think my maths/stats intuition for problems like this is OK, but I lack rigour.
You are perhaps obligated to take an interest in your own democracy, although that doesn't mean you're obligated to inject it into your workplace and every facet of life.
You are by no means obligated to take an interest in wars on other continents.
Especially not to subject your poor coworkers to your Gell-Man Amnesia-ridden opinions on it!
The article discussing Russia's invasion of Ukraine has received a significant amount of engagement and upvotes on Hacker News. To be frank, I didn't expect that you would share a similar comment about this particular topic, would you?
Did you strongly disagree on the numerous posts related to Ukraine and Russia which have appeared on this forum in the past? or is it the topic that bothers you? You cannot close your eyes to event in which your country is complicit. Ignorance is not an excuse.
There is an interesting and delicate conversation about how a twenty-something engineer in the military ends up frequenting anti-military and anti-democracy subreddits. I think that fits in with hn.
There is another interesting and delicate conversation about what that person thought about Gaza and about Israeli Jews, and where those ideas came from. He posted on Reddit that Hamas's stated intent to destroy Israel - where 7 million Jews live - would not count as genocide. That is a higher percentage than the extermination of 6 million European Jews in the Holocaust, when there were more Jews alive than now.
He based this on the belief that Israel is a US and UK colony, which is hard to take seriously either literally (since it isn't) or figuratively (since none of the many non-middle-eastern waves of Jewish refugees came from the US or UK).
He also had a deeply held belief that the violence killing 1% of Palestinians in Gaza IS a genocide (and I think it's safe to assume that he fully accepted Hamas's claims that 30k people have died, and fully rejected IDF's claims that 12k of those were Hamas militants). So deeply held that he burned himself to death over it.
To me, the inconsistency of holding those two beliefs so strongly at the same time is a sign of antisemitism believed more deeply than I personally believe in anything. And that contradiction does not survive a moment's rational thought - to me at least. Which makes me assume that someone whose profession is built around thinking rationally was simply unable to think rationally about the Israel-Gaza conflict and see the inherent asymmetry of what he was saying.
So I think there is a discussion here. Not about whether he was right that the devastation in Gaza amounts to a genocide, or right about whether democracy is evil, or right about whether America is evil. But the limits of rationality compared to how engineers usually think about themselves, and whether we are more or less susceptible than anyone else when it comes to online echo chambers.
And it is incredibly hard to have that conversation without getting into flame wars. Or projecting our personal beliefs about the Israel/Palestine conflict to the point that it prevents useful discourse.
That's not just Hamas's claim, that's the UN's claim, Amnesty international has this claim. There's plenty of independent thirds parties which hold this claim. The same cannot be said for the 12k militants claim, for which the idf has supplied no evidence, and is not repeated by independent third parties.
And beyond that, I don't think the belief that killing 1% of a population and displacing and injuring many more has much to do with any feelings towards any race. If the Belgians came into my country and killed 1% of everyone, I'd be pretty miffed, but that doesn't mean I have an ethnic hatred of Belgians.
Even the IDF uses those numbers. The number is likely much higher as it does not take into account those buried under the rubble - which cannot be reached without proper equipment.
In every legal system, intent without capacity is not considered to be intent. It is so laughable and pathetic, frankly, that you brought it up at all.
> It is so laughable and pathetic, frankly, that you brought it up at all.
If the claim you're making is "we should not bring up the fact that the Hamas' stated intent is to kill and/or deport every Jew in Israel because they don't have the capacity to do that"... I mean, I've seen variations of that claim before, but I still find it baffling.
(Standards disclaimers apply, the Hamas having genocidal intent doesn't justify the IDF's war crimes, etc.)
This is why the conversation is nearly impossible, even on hn. It's hard to find enough people who agree on which facts are objectively true in order to have the discussion.
Things end up stuck in endless loops of the loudest voices claiming that either "any criticism at all of Israel, no matter what it does, is antisemitic" or "no criticism of Israel is ever antisemitic unless it explicitly and directly refers to Judaism."
Ironically, I've observed many of the former have trouble understanding that racism can exist without using a racial slur, while many of the latter can easily write a 1000 word essay about dog whistles and implicit bias against groups other than Jews.
What the Israelis are doing now is no different from what the Romans did to quell various rebellions, what the British Empire did in their colonies, or what the Nazis did to the Warsaw ghetto after the uprising.
I speak Hebrew and I listen to a broad range of voices coming out of Israel. Do you?
If you tell me what country you're from I'll try the same trick on you, take some selective voices from your "leadership" and present them as if they're policy or the official position of your country.
Punishment or retribution is not Israel's policy here and is not what's being executed on the ground. Are there some crazy voices in Israeli politics. Yes. That proves nothing. Also many of those voices were heard in the immediate aftermath of Oct 7th that was so brutal, barbaric, and shocking, that "blood was boiling" and emotions ran high.
What you're saying here is basically blood libel. To take your analogies, it's not different than the stories about Jews drinking the blood of Christian children. It's an antisemitic lie in the form you present it. That people have the audacity to draw comparisons between what the Nazis did to the Jews and what's going on in Gaza is mind boggling.
How can you claim that what a minister says is not indicative of
government policy? How come you are in a better position to interpret
government policy than the ministers themselves?
"I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no
electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed ... we are fighting
against human animals" - Israel's defense minister. "You must remember
what Amalek has done to you" Israel's fucking prime minister. "It is
an entire nation out there that is responsible" Israel's president.
It is very clear that what is going on is fueled by vengeance. Israel
knows it can't destroy Hamas, but it can make the civilians suffer
which it thinks will act as a deterrent. "Was it worth it?" they ask
and hope that future Palestinians will answer "No".
You can accuse me of blood libel all you want, but this is exactly
what the Nazis did to resistance groups in the territories they
occupied. And the German people cheered them on, just like the
Israelis do now.
I can claim it because it is true. A minister (that is part of a coalition of many parties in Israel) is not indicative of government policy. There are some pretty whacky ministers in the Israeli government right now with some pretty weird opinions. This is not Israeli policy. Policy is determined by Cabinet and broader government votes, not by what people are saying (responding emotionally or trying to appease some political base). It's also what's executed on the ground. Israel's government is also subject to judicial oversight, the government can't just do whatever it wants. You just don't understand Israel's political system and how it works, and you're taking statements either made under extreme emotional states or by extremists and presenting them as official policy.
You're taking the Israeli defense minister quote, a snippet of it, made at the height of shock, as factual policy, when you know this is not true on the ground, e.g. Israel is letting food and fuel in and has not laid a complete siege on Gaza since Oct 7th. It also supplies Gaza with water. I'll concede that in the immediate shock after the barbaric Oct 7th attack there were some very strong statements made but actual policy has been within the laws of war. Gallant was also mostly referring to what Israel supplies Gaza but Israel has no direct control over the Gaza-Egypt border. His referral of "fighting human animals" was referring to Hamas's Oct 7th rape, mutilation, murder, torture, etc. Maybe not the best choice of words.
I am going to maintain that this is a blood libel.
I do think I'm in a better position to interpret government policy because I actually listen to the broader voices and understand how the system works. You're obviously not exposed to the broad public discourse in Israel but rather to highly filtered/cherry-picked views.
"Israel is doing all it can to get civilians out of harm's way as it battles Hamas in Gaza, including dropping leaflets warning them to flee, but its attempts to minimize casualties were "not successful", Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday.": https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-not-success...
"“We don’t seek to govern Gaza, we don’t seek to occupy it. But we seek to give it and us a better future … and that requires defeating Hamas,” he said. “I’ve set goals, I didn’t set a timetable because it can take more time.”: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/netanyahu-says-not...
"The PMO said that when Netanyahu used the biblical quotation “Remember what Amalek did to you,” he was using it as a way of describing the savage Hamas attack of October 7, and certainly not as a call for wanton killings.
The PMO pointed out that the same phrase appears in a permanent exhibit at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum, as well at a memorial in The Hague itself for Dutch Jews murdered in the Holocaust.
The IDF spokesperson has said hundreds of times in his daily briefings that the war is not against Palestinians, it's against Hamas:
"“I’ve seen, personally, many types of targets that we have. The resolution of the intelligence, as in whose house it is, which Hamas commander uses the facility or what the offices in a certain building are used by Hamas for,” Conricus said. “I can tell you that the intelligence is solid and it is focused and that we are striking targets that are directly related to Hamas and not targets that don’t have anything to do with them.” https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4250823-tapper-presses-id...
""I want to be clear from the beginning, there is not a single drop of cynicism about Palestinian civilian casualties. We do not want and we are not trying to achieve any casualties. Our fight is against the evil terrorist organization Hamas. It is them that we are targeting, not the civilian population. But unfortunately, because Hamas hides behind them, unfortunately, civilians get caught in the middle," he said." https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/hamas-prefers-t...
EDIT: and again, the comparison of Israel to the Nazis is ignorant and disgusting.
Your argumentation is a form of damage control. Just like modern
neo-Nazis either downplay, minimize, or try to justify atrocities
committed by the Nazi regime you try to downplay, minimize or justify
atrocities committed by the Israeli regime. The neo-Nazis say that the
number of victims of the Holocaust is grossly overstated. You will say
that there is no grounds for accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. The
neo-Nazis say that ordinary Germans had no idea about the
concentration camps. You will say that ordinary Jewish Israelis do not
revel in Gaza's destruction. Neo-Nazis spreads the myth of the clean
Wehrmacht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht),
just like you will spread the myth of the clean IDF. Neo-Nazis
downplay statements from leading Nazi leaders just like you downplay
statements from leading Israeli leaders. They say "Yeah, Hitler said
he wanted to exterminate Jews but he didn't mean it!" and you say
"Yeah, Gallant said Gaza should be starved but he didn't mean it!"
While Golan is a minister without a portfolio, she wouldn't be in her
position if she was not a popular politician or if her views were not
aligned with those of the rest of the government. And she certainly
has power to affect government policy. Although these ministers may be
"whacky" to you the very fact that they are ministers prove that they
aren't wacky to most Jewish Israelis. After all, they were elected.
Children are starving to death in Gaza and your country is on trial
for genocide. While you try to excuse these crimes and justify calls
for genocide (Amalek). Whine about anti-Semitism all you want, in my
eyes you are nothing but an Israeli neo-Nazi. You have learned nothing
from history and had you been German you would have justified the
Nazi crimes too.
Your argument is that Israelis are Nazis and therefore Israelis are Nazis. You refuse to entertain the possibility that the literal Nazis here are the Hamas and their supporters despite all the evidence and their rhetoric saying so.
Your comparison of Israel to Nazis is disgusting, ignorant and antisemitic.
You're taking natural emotional responses when your people are brutally raped, mutilated, kidnapped, slaughtered in their homes and comparing it to the deliberate calculated murder of 6 million Jews that did nothing to the Germans over years.
EDIT: You are the one who is "downplay, minimize, or try to justify atrocities committed by the Nazi regime". What does that make you by your own definition? A lot of people have died, I'm not happy about it. There's been a lot of destruction. I blame Hamas for starting the war. There are starving children, yes. These are nothing compared to the Nazis. Nothing. Israel is within its rights to wage this war, it has good reasons, it is persecuting it within the norms for similar wars. It is not committing genocide and "your country is on trial for genocide" is bullshit and you know it.
No, the argument is that Israeli Jews are acting exactly like Germans
did during the Nazi era. They either don't care or they cheer on the
slaughter of innocent civilians. The destruction of Gaza is more
complete than the destruction of Dresden during WWI or of
Warsaw after the ghetto uprising. Yet more than half of all Jewish
Israelis think their army is using too little force! This and many
other frightening statistics indicate that Jewish Israelis are just as
genocidal as the Germans were or the Hutsi.
The difference is that Jewish Israelis have access to contrarian
views. The Germans and Rwandans had no free press and no internet to
access alternative opinions on. That the Jewish Israelis have, but by
and large still choose fascism and murder is despicable.
> You're taking natural emotional responses
This bullshit makes you complicit. You're not in uniform, perhaps, but
you are here online debate-lording your way to the last word. The
Spanish government did not call for genocide after the 2004 Madrid
attack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings), nor
did the French government after the 2015 Paris attack
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks). Neither
Spain nor France took revenge on the Islamists by carpet-bombing
civilians.
> Israel is within its rights to wage this war, it has good reasons,
it is persecuting it within the norms for similar wars. It is not
committing genocide and "your country is on trial for genocide" is
bullshit and you know it.
No, I don't know it and neither does the court that decided to accept
the case. No, Israel is not "persecuting it within the norms for
similar wars". It currently has displaced almost all Gazans, destroyed
over 50% of all buildings (that much more than Japan and Germany
during WWII), and is starving children to death. If you can't see how
fucking evil that is, you are a lost cause.
This line of reasoning is very similar to an infamous post where stackoverflow was used to promote the owners views on elections, and was a watershed moment in that site losing credibility and interest.
I don't see what's happening in Gaza as being culturally particular to the specific identity groups involved here. It's a very human situation and we are all at risk of falling into these kinds of collective behaviors.