I for one will be holding my representatives responsible who continue to vote for the US to enable a genocide. The videos coming out of Gaza have turned me and many others into single issue voters.
People didn't flip to red so much as blue voters in swing states sitting on their hands and abstaining from voting. Now they're looking down the barrel of authoritarianism and they're still unwilling to vote unless Gaza is a fully solved problem. The cruel irony is that this behavior is worsening the situation in Gaza.
Couldn't the Democrats change their positions so that they align with and accommodate popular positions and win elections. I don't think most of the (rather large block) of folks I know who abstained wanted a fully solved problem, they wanted the US to stop funding Israel and that is a position that the Democratic party could have taken if they had chosen to do so.
If only the blue representatives would resolve this tension by pulling support for a now internationally-recognised genocide! :( I suppose that option is just too radical to put on the table.
The Biden administration brokered and pressured Israel into a ceasefire that asymmetrically disfavored them. Israel exchanged 30 Hamas militants per Israeli hostage. The ceasefire outlined a permanent resolution to the conflict, including Israel's full withdrawal from Gaza. They also pressured Israel to keep aid channels open during the war, which is exceptionally obvious now given significantly longer blockades and that famine broke out under Trump. The 2006 withdrawal from Gaza and Oslo Accords were also brokered by America. Israel would not have agreed to any of this without any security reassurances in the form of military aid.
On the other hand, there is no guarantee that completely cutting off ties with Israel, would make anything better for Gazans. While it's possible there would be fewer civilian casualties, it's also possible there would be more if Israel switched to from precision strikes to ground invasions and dumb weapons.
You've thought through the full foreign policy implications for pulling aid from Israel overnight? I'm not sure why "less bad" on your pet issue isn't enough, especially when you're up against Trump, who has made posts suggesting resorts and golden statues of himself in Gaza.
> You've thought through the full foreign policy implications for pulling aid from Israel overnight?
I don’t think many people are thinking through now especially the one at the top of power chain, otherwise we’d not have witnessed child charades like invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, as well as overnight gutting of USAID.
And that was always known to have been a counter-productive protest. There's nothing ironic about this. They were told. They didn't care.
It was unambiguously clear that no matter how bad you felt Obama/Biden/Harris were on Israel, Trump was/would be worse.
If every single human life is worth saving (and it is), it's indisputable that Trump is worse for Gaza than Harris would have been.
It was the ultimate Trolley Problem, and a bunch of progressives acted like pulling the switch on move the trolley is NEVER acceptable regardless of how many lives it saves...
The Dems being willing to lose elections rather than meet voter expectations, says more about them than it does any particular voting or non voting group.
The trolley problem is an oversimplification. What we have is actually a repeated trolley problem, where picking the least of two evils gives the “less evil” party a near infinite amount of leverage over you to demand your loyalty regardless of whether they give in to any of your requests. The “less evil” party is in effect holding the people tied to the tracks hostage in your trolley problem. Because “less evil” is still evil, society decays no matter which way you flip the switch which leads to a population prone to fascism. The neoliberals are to blame more than anyone else for the situation we’re in today. They love to deflect but they are complicit in everything going wrong right now.
Wait what happened? Was it that people who typically vote blue voted against those who supported Israel? As a Muslim and staunch supporter of Palestine, I didn't think that many people turned red because of this, at least not enough to swing the election. Wayne County, which has Dearborn Michigan (the city with the largest population proportionally of Muslims), stayed blue. I figured if Dearborn couldn't tip the scales any which way then the issue was probably not something worth campaigning on in terms of demographics
The bigger factor was people staying home because they refused any compromise on the issue. For races that swing depending on turnout, this was enough to tip those races red. Hard to say whether this impacted the Presidential election, but it probably did affect some House and Senate races.
> that was one of the biggest campaign points and voter sentiment on which people flipped to Red
This is nonsense outside Michigan. And to the extent this happened, I'd have to say pro-Palestinian voters in swing states casting with the guy who initiated the Muslim ban and recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital essentially communicated that they were fine throwing millions of people in the Middle East under the bus to satisfy their vanity.
Even Wayne County, Michigan, which has Dearborn, stayed blue.
Though I was honestly surprised at how much of my Muslim community was so anti-Harris that they voted for Trump. Harris may be pro-Israel, but Trump is anti-almost everything else we stand for.
> how much of my Muslim community was so anti-Harris that they voted for Trump
I'm honestly split between pro-Palestinian Arab-American Trump voters and soybean-farming Trump voters as the stupidest voting blocks of 2024. Not only are you helping put someone in power who is so obviously going to work against your interests. You've also removed yourself from the other party's table where your issue might have gained priority down the road.
Flipping the U.S. really is the key to ending this conflict. The U.S. reliably uses its security council veto to nix any meaningful UN response and the U.S. remains, by far, the biggest supplier of arms to the IDF. If the US were to stop veto'ing everything and cut off the IDF's supply of, at least, some types of weapons, the new ground assault would likely end quickly.
Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen. Netanyahu has, to date, handled Trump deftly and Rubio's current presence in Israel seems to be aimed at offering support to the ground offensive, not opposition. I honestly have no idea what kind of backlash it would take to shake U.S. support for this genocide.
There's definitely a generational gap going in the US. Support for Israel is not popular among the younger generation in the US, and there's a good deal of voters in their 20s and 30s for whom support for Israel a red line in candidates. But older generations tend to be staunchly in favor of Israel, and too much of the gerontocratic political class thinks that pro-Israel uber alles is the key to winning votes.
It is worth noting that Andrew Cuomo, in a desperate last-minute gamble to boost support in the NYC mayoral race, has come out against Israel. Considering that much of the attacks on Mamdani have focused on his support for Palestine (construing him as antisemitic), it's notable that other candidates also seem to think that being anti-Israel is actually the vote winner for moderates right now.
I wouldn't label this as "support for Israel"/"against Israel". One can support Israel without supporting Israel's current approach. Many within Israel are not happy with Netanyahu's methods, and presumably they are not against Israel.
I understand that that's the current shorthand, but it seems inaccurate and unnecessarily polarizing to me.
This is what puzzles me - ppl keep railing about being pro or anti Israel and it's overly simplistic and also not really accurately describing things. It's more pro/anti Likud or Kahanists, or really at heart a right vs left wing divide. There's still plenty of Labor or more progressive elements of the Israeli public who are against what Netanyahu and his political allies are doing.
Unfortunately, that is the reality of how the loudest voices globally want to frame the issue, probably for their own political reasons. That it is possible to be pro-Israel but criticize Likud is inconvenient for those trying to paint an entire country with a single brush. Ironically, the hard-line anti-Israel stances end up forcing such people to keep the criticism quiet.
Mossad have actually warned the Netanyahu government of this, saying U.S support for Israel is slipping away and now might be the best time to implement a two state solution, while it can still be as one sided as possible in favour of Israel. Netanyahu has chosen to ignore this.
That gap between support of Israel across age groups existed historically AFAIK, although the margins were narrower.
More worrying for Israel is that it's becoming a partisan issue. That goes to both ends - previously unthinkable, unwavering support under Republicans but a very short leash under the Democrats.
> More worrying for Israel is that it's becoming a partisan issue.
A highly salient political issue becoming partisan is a good thing in a representative democracy, as that is the only thing that makes it possible for the public to influence it by general election votes.
In FPTP, this often ends up backfiring. A politicized issue quickly becomes a polarized issue - the other side takes the opposite view, and both sides then race to the extremes. Compromise becomes less and less possible, because then each side sees it as a defeat. Nothing ends up done.
Why would we expect any desirable outcome in this hypothetical though? So the US flips, Israel is pressured into withdrawing, Hamas regains control of the strip and resumes rocket attacks, Israel is forced to respond eventually. It doesn't seem like a path toward a real solution.
There isn't a real solution. Just an opportunity for a few years of peace where people can do the important things in life. That is no small thing though. The danger is in chasing some quixotic nationalist dream. That is never ever going to work out.
> Why would we expect any desirable outcome in this hypothetical though?
Ending unconditional US support is the only thing that motivates Israel to seek an end other than by genocide, which is a necessary (but not sufficient, on its own) condition for any desirable outcome.
> It doesn't seem like a path toward a real solution.
As long as the Dahiya doctrine persists, it won't be. But that's an Israeli problem - their disproportionate response has been exploited for years. Hamas is fine letting Israel commit as many war crimes as it takes to satisfy their leadership, it very clearly hasn't changed tactics in recent years. The cost to Israeli international credibility seems to be "worth it" in their eyes.
So, if Israel wants peace they first have to stop escalation. But even if Hamas was defeated, we know that wouldn't be the end of things. Next the Druze has to be defended, which would result in a very justified annexation of south Syria and repeat of the same genocidal conditions in Gaza. They would also attempt to unseat power in Yemen, and then embroil America in an unwinnable war against Iran to sustain a true hegemony.
What is more precise than identifying specific structures, warning the civilians around those structures to evacuate, and then destroying the structures with little damage to surrounding structures? Or how did you think those videos of buildings being destroyed came around? Precognition.
There have been entire neighborhoods booby trapped by Hamas. And you can find photos of those neighborhoods flattened.
Those booby traps also kill Gazan children. Did you see that recent video of the Gazan girl getting blown to bits? They tried to pin it on Israel, but it was a Hamas IED. That's why there was a camera pointed at it.
Gaza declared war on Israel. Americans as a whole are never going to condemn Israel for doing what is necessary to be reasonably certain that Gazans aren’t going to conduct a massacre at a rave again. Unfortunately, it appears that destroying Gaza is the only way to have confidence it won’t happen again.
It can either end in the death of one side, most probably Palestinians, or in peace agreement.
Currently there is war, peace is out of the window. First step is to stop the war, second step is to make both side actually negotiate.
It was attempted by Clinton a while ago but assassinations from mossad and hamas prevented the process to success.
To be honest, politicians have failed us too many times for my sad brain to believe that there will be a good outcome.
Most probably Israel society will keep radicalizing itself, Palestinians will be killed and Gaza bombed/annexed leading to the death of both Palestinian and Israeli civilization. Palestinian will be all dead and Israeli will have become in all manner what they initially sought to destroy, literal nazi.
I’d even bet that death by zyklon is more human that seeing your family and yourself getting slowly hungered to death. And contrary to nazi Germany, no Israeli can pretend to not know what’s going on.
No, normal people understand very well that they are. They are the children of Palestinians who were murdered or ethnically-cleansed in the Nakba and then locked up in an open-air prison. They are the resistance to zionist-colonialism. You obviously can't describe them as such, since you are a Zionist for whom such primitive smears are useful propaganda designed to deny them the internationally recognized right to armed resistance.
To an extent sure but Israel 's methods of stopping them are the issue. They are using total war which causes suffering disproportionately to innocent people
The US seems to be dominated by different right wing meme factions now. A choice between different strains of Maga all of whom would kill thousands in Gaza just to spite the left.
a lot of the videos "coming out of Gaza" are propaganda/fake. I know that sounds like a "crazy conspiracy theory" but if one researches it one can see that "anti-Israel" narratives are being crafted by powerful forces.
"blame the 'evil' Jews" is one of Western Civilization's favorite "games" for some reason. "Their culture values education, frugality, they don't accept Jesus Christ as 'the Messiah', they must be evil!"
(I'm not Jewish, but many of my close friends are, and I've read a lot of history/religion/politics books)
Consider that the videos of Oct 7 had a similar effect on lots of decent people. The un is the same now as it was before October 7. In gueterres words "it didn't happen in a vacuum". The complete loss of credibility for the un also didn't happen in a vacuum. Even if their report is true it will fall on deaf ears thanks in no small part to their lack of any sort of objectivity when it comes to Israel.
This was me. I was browsing Hamas' Telegram account as they released the FPV videos that day. The two most disturbing scenes were the pantless body of a teenaged girl being burned amidst chanting of "Allahu Akbar", and militants scouring buildings for any person or pet they could kill and doing just that whenever they found someone.
I learned a very uncomfortable—though valuable—lesson about humans that day.
October 7 made people in the US demand that their representatives stop supporting genocide? No, it didn’t. It made a lot of supposedly decent people support and even demand evil in their name. At that point you’re just defining “being a decent person” as “if nothing evil happens you won’t be evil” which doesn’t seem like a useful definition.
On a political or legal level for Israel it might have more implications though, that is impossible for them to ignore, but ICJ will focus on the leaders who can avoid visiting certain countries...just like Putin.
> Agreed, UN doesn't have a great reputation in America, I'm skeptical many people will care about this outside the media news cycle.
Lots of people will care, but it isn’t going to move a lot of opinions.
> Pew says only 52% percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of UN in 2024
Yes, but it says 57% do in 2025, the first positive change in support since 2022. [0]
But neither is that much more than the 50% that already think Israel is committing genocide [1], and the positions are probably significantly correlated, so this probably isn’t swaying many people that aren’t already convinced.
> On a political or legal level it might have more implications though but ICJ will focus on the leaders who can avoid visiting certain countries.
Always good to see assessments of international legal impacts from people who don’t know that the International Court of Justice deals exclusively with cases between states, and that the standing body that deals with individual offenses that are war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression is the International Criminal Court.
> Always good to see assessments of international legal impacts from people who don’t know that the International Court of Justice deals exclusively with cases between states, and that the standing body that deals with individual offenses that are war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression is the International Criminal Court.
So what is your expert opinion then? What is the risk to the state of Israel itself if ICJ makes a case against them?
But the Palestians and Hamas are distinct. There are even Christian Palestinians who are of course, since Hamas is so fundamentally Islamist, not at all represented by the group.
Palestinians who are not part of Hamas are third parties and when they are attacked, you can't tell them to ask Hamas to release hostages or do anything, because they have no more influence over Hamas than anybody else does.
> Do Christian Palestinians live in the Gaza strip or somewhere else?
Would note that not all Muslim Palestinians support Hamas, and to the degree they say they do, I wouldn't morally equivocate their actions with those who actually commit the atrocities (or refuse to surrender hostages).
I live within walking distance of the Gaza strip and talk to people there several times per week via Telegram. People who live there, who grew up there. I talk to them in Arabic.
I'm hardly disconnected from what is happening in Gaza.
Israel systematically abducts, tortures, and imprisons Palestinians old and young with reckless abandon. I hate to defend Hamas, but the goal of the abductions was to use them as a bargaining chip to get their own captives who'd been unjustly imprisoned in hellish conditions, for years on end.
Settlers in the West Bank openly murder Palestinians like animals, as well. The State of Israel is a violent terrorist state.
While I agree that Israel do all these illegal things, abductions, murders, letting settlers do whatever and so on, I think on a deeper level the Hamas attack was an Iranian proxy attack and to them, bargaining chips and hostages are just details. They play a dirty game.
Ignoring the thousands of rockets launched from Gaza in the hours before, Hamas telegraphed the October 7 attacks for years. Specifically, planning the attack since at least the 2010's.
Occam's Razor indicates that it was a legitimate operation by Hamas and Israel underestimated their adversary.
>I think on a deeper level the Hamas attack was an Iranian proxy attack and to them, bargaining chips and hostages are just details. They play a dirty game.
That is such a shallow understanding of someone for whom the whole region is just a source of entertainment. While Hamas is an "Iranian proxy" in a similar way that Ukraine is an "American proxy" that doesn't mean that Hamas and Ukraine aren't autonomous actors who, despite their reliance on outside help, have a righteous cause and will keep defending their lands with or without that help.
It's also ironic that you would describe it as "on a deeper level" when it's quite the opposite - it's shallow and misguided. Hamas is a Sunni militant group, while Iran is Shia. You clearly have no understanding whatsoever how these groups have historically fought each other - just look at how they have been fiercely fighting each other in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
So why would Iran help Hamas then? For Iran, attaching themselves to a righteous cause such as Palestine has been a very effective tool to whitewash Iran's image and present Iran as "Axis of Resistance" despite having caused much harm to the Sunni-Muslims in the region (e.g. Iran cooperated with America in destroying Iraq, Iran also helped Assad oppress the Syrians for decades). Thus, helping the Palestinian resistance gives the shady Iranian regime legitimacy and positive PR like no other cause in the world. (the average iranian may genuinely support Palestine, because they are mostly unaware of the meta-game being played by their own regime)
Why does Hamas accept help from Iran? This should be much easier to understand. Most of the Arab regimes are ruled by puppets who are subservient to America and have betrayed the resistance. One of the main reasons for October 7 was Saudi's MBS being close to normalizing with Israel and thus sealing Palestine's fate forever. This was a "now or never" moment so the resistance made clear that they mean business and that they won't let any normalization happen without a sovereign Palestinian state. Back to Iran - so when you're in a dire situation, you can't be picky with your allies. Iran helps Hamas because it's a great tool to whitewash its own Iranian image, and Hamas gets weapons in return. October 7 however was most certainly not in Iran's interest whatsoever. Despite Iran's harsh language towards America, they very much tried to cozy up and seek "forgiveness" because of the crushing sanctions. Iran may play dirty games like Israel does, but Hamas doesn't - for the resistance it's quite literally about survival and resisting zionist-colonialism.
[Some more examples. In 2012, relations between Iran and Hamas soured after Hamas refused to support Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally in the Syrian civil war. This led to Iran taking punitive measures against Hamas.
- As a financial punishment, Iran cut its funding to Hamas. This financial support had been estimated at around $23 million per month and the cut caused a significant financial crisis for Hamas in Gaza.
- Along with financial cuts, Iran also ceased military cooperation, which ended the supply of weapons to Hamas from Tehran.
- They began to rebuild their relationship around three years later, though tensions remained (see links below)
Many of the current hostages were in a music festival (it's not a war zone) and captured during the Oct 7 massacre by Palestine.
Edit: I see you edited your comment to blame the hostages for being in the music festival. So, you normalize blaming regular people who have nothing to do with the war; the very thing you said we shouldn't do.
You mean like supporting Germany and Japan in 1944-1945? German and Japanese civilians were dying in the thousands. How could it be wrong to support imperial japan and nazi germany by opposing the allies?
When it comes to strategic bombing, honestly, yes.
It boggles my mind that militaries keep attempting despite decades of experience showing that damn near every single time it's been attempted, it's been an abject failure in its aims and very often entirely counterproductive.
Like any social media it's also a place for the lonely and paranoid. These were always attractive ideas for them. The difference is that today they come from the Left.
At this point any Israel supporter can’t really afford to care about anybody’s opinion on human rights, so it doesn’t matter who is saying this. I’m sure the UN doesn’t expect their report to influence the people committing the genocide they are documenting: they hope to influence the rest of the world.
I couldn't find any info on intimidation of HR council members. Nevertheless there were reports of the Israeli Mossad chief intimidating the ICC chief prosecutor at the time Fatou Bensouda. [1]
Her successor Karim Khan has also reported threats were made. He was later implicated in a sex scandal [2]. It would not surprise me if this was a Mossad sting operation.
Inb4 whining that it's just the American government being slavishly loyal to the Zionist cause and the Zionist government of Israel has nothing at all to do with this. I swear to god if I get any response like this I will literally go blind from my eyeballs doing full 360s in my skull.
The right's split thinking on this issue is largely a split down generational lines. The balance of the split is shifting as old people die. The Zionist faction of the left is almost dead already, and on the right it will still take some more years, but once that's done, America's support for Israel will have expired.
I think Israel realizes they're on borrowed time, and that's why they've adopted such an overtly aggressive strategy of getting what they want now, making their strategic goals a fait accompli while still receiving protection from America. With America out of the picture, Israel goes the way of Rhodesia.
The support for Israel was always higher for older people, and that goes back all the way to the 70's as far as I could tell. Something about being young and impressible, captured by the Palestinian ethos, until people grow up.
When you say "Going by the way of Rhodesia" do you mean Israelis will just scatter away, the remaining ones will be under constant threat of violence?
No, it's because American boomers are crazy Christians who think that they must ensure that Israel continues to exist, no matter how much evil it perpetrates, because apparently their schizo book says the existence of Israel is a prerequisite for the resurrection of their Messiah who will then usher in the Apocalypse. Old people in America don't support Israel because they're smarter or more mature, it's because they're insane retards. Young people are abandoning these American churches, and largely religion in general. They haven't been brainwashed into supporting Israel like the boomers were.
BTW, Israel going the way of Rhodesia is unavoidable. Depending on how things go, it might happen in a few years, or twenty years, but as surely as baby boomers all eventually die, so too will Israel die.
Why shouldn't Hamas leadership be bombed wherever they may be? They're the leaders of a terrorist organization. The US takes out terrorists wherever they may be (or, works with local authorities to get them first). But, when local authorities are siding with the terrorists, we go in there and do it ourselves. October 7th was Israel's 9/11 - we went and got bin Laden in Pakistan, without dealing with the Pakistani government. Why shouldn't Israel do the same thing? I say - kill all the Hamas leadership, and leave the random Palestinian citizens alone.
> Why shouldn't Hamas leadership be bombed wherever they may be?
Israel wouldn't be nearly as criticised if they're restricted themselves to surgical strikes on Hamas. Hell, they could have done exactly what they did until hostages started being exchanged, and then switched to surgical strikes, and I suspect--while folks would grumble--leaders would have better things to focus on.
We have bombed their leadership. This is an entirely different war. Hamas was/is the government of Gaza. They're part of the people there, not outside it.
You're trying to fight an organization that is part of the civilian population, not above it or outside of it. And that organization is deliberately using human shields to blur the lines even further.
It's not easy to figure out who's a random Palestinian or who's going to fire a rocket into Israel five years from now. If we want to keep bombing our way to victory, that's going to continue down the road of genocide.
Humanity needs to be better than this. We need to be better than this.
Yes, and at this point I'm not arguing for or against that action. I'm saying the current and previous US administration have very different foreign policy.
Looking at the official HN guidelines, it states that "Most stories about politics" is off-topic, and "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic".
Is the Isreal/Gaza debate not political, and not mainstream news? How does a story like this not directly violate those guidelines?
Furthermore, the guidelines state that stories should be what "good hackers" find "intellectually satisfying". A political debate thread about Isreal is what "good hackers" would find intellectually satisfying?
I just can not understand how a story such as this in any way remotely meets the established, official guidelines for what belongs here.
Considering these threads also, universally, just devolve in political flamewars / hate spreading. There's nothing constructive here. There's no debate. There's no opposing ideas/opinions allowed.
Yes, but as pg once put it, "note those words most and probably" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426). That was in 2012, btw, which shows how far back HN's approach to this goes.
That leaves open the question of which stories to treat as on topic, but the links in my GP comment go into detail about how we handle that. I'm not saying we always make the correct call about individual stories. There will never be general agreement about that, since every reader has a different set of things they care about. But I hope we can at least make the principles clear, as well as the fact that they haven't changed.
> A political debate thread about Isreal is what "good hackers" would find intellectually satisfying?
Personally, one aspect I always enjoyed about this site was how it was often an escape for me from the endless bombardments of political discourse that is constantly being shown/recommend to me on other platforms. I do understand the importance of the nature of these types of discussions, but I agree with you, I am not certain much honest debate is being had here.
In the n number of threads like this, I would be surprised if many leave with any of their opinions changed. All too often do people comment to soothe their own knee-jerk reactions rather than to facilitate understanding or intellectually challenge one another.
Conversely, some of us don't hang out on sites that are an endless bombardment of political discourse. That sounds awful. The HN approach seems uniquely useful. One or two post on an event, easily skipped over and ignored if you want with all the comments hidden behind clicking on that headline. Whole trees of comments trivially collapsed at will when they become uninteresting. It is actually a really great way of getting international news (including US news for me) and sampling opinions and commentary, even if it was not intended that way.
Israel and Israeli businesses are an intractable part of the modern American tech scene. Mellanox, for example, is the cited reason Nvidia ships any datacenter-scale interconnect at all today. America's highest-tech defense contractors work in direct concert with Rafael et. al, and companies like Cellebrite are suppliers of US law enforcement.
When the equation changes vis-a-vis Israel's credibility, this entire Jenga structure has to be reevaluated. It's not satisfying to think about, but it is intellectually prudent and remains important regardless of how civil the response ends up being.
> When the equation changes vis-a-vis Israel's credibility, this entire Jenga structure has to be reevaluated. It's not satisfying to think about, but it is intellectually prudent and remains important regardless of how civil the response ends up being.
If the topics and responses pertained to such a discussion, then that would be one thing. However, it seems like that is not what is being discussed in this topic nor comments section.
I feel like parent probably meant Paul Graham. Garry holds polar opposite opinions (he blocked me on X because he had had made claims about what Intifada means, and as an Arabic speaker I felt compelled to point out the correct meaning).
In any case, I don't think Paul or Garry are interfering with the algorithm or moderation here.
For me, this is meaningful because for the first time a legitimate international body is calling this a genocide.
Previously, it’s been activists and claims that this might be genocide. I haven’t read the report yet. But I will, and I intend to leave my mind open as to whether this raises the profile of this war in my mind relative to domestic issues.
Go read this UNHCR report. All the evidence is just circular references to other bodies who reference each other. The most damning thing they could pin on Israel was that "Israel admits 83% of the casualties are civilians". That idea was because Israel could name 17% of the casualties in Hamas registers as members of the organization. But assuming that every other casualty is a civilian is quite a stretch. For one thing, Israel doesn't know the name of every militant it kills while he's aiming an RPG at them. For another, there are many other militant organizations in the strip, notably the Islamic Jihad. For a third, typically 75% - 90% of the casualties of war are civilians by the UN's own numbers.
> can we dismiss all statements from someone who is related to someone who worked for the Israeli government or was in the IDF too?
The point is that, as someone with limited stakes in this war and limited exposure to its history until recently, unbiased sources have been hard to come by. The entire definition of genocide has been politicised. That isn't a criticism of anyone doing it--language is a powerful tool, and it's fair game to try and bend definitions to one's advantage. But all that makes piercing the veil on whether this is the horribleness of war being selectively cited, or a selectively horrible war, tough.
This report cuts through that. The evidence is compelling, albeit less primary than I'd have hoped. The writing is clear and impartial. (Though again, a lot of secondary sourcing.) It doesn't seek to answer who is at fault for what is, essentially, an intractable multigenerational conflict (even before we involve proxies). It just seeks to simply answer a question, and in my opinion, having now skimmed (but not deeply contemplated) it, it does.
The balance of evidence suggests Israel is prosecuting a genocide against the people of Palestine. That creates legitimacy for escalating a regional conflict (one among money, I may add, and nowhere close to the deadliest) into an international peacekeeping operation.
Unfortunately, all of this rests on a system of international law that basically all the great powers of this generation (China, then Russia, and now America and India) have undermined.
I also know people who have had family members killed by the IDF, if you question my credibility.
You can certainly state that I'm not impartial (am I partial?) because "my side was already chosen". But in fact, I'm in constant contact with Gazans (in Gaza, in Arabic) and constantly reevaluating my stance.
I hate this war, but I do not see any option other than Israel continuing to pressure Hamas. Especially as the European nations actually embolden Hamas. And even with the pressure, I do not see how this conflict is a genocide. If, and ths report states, that Israel is performing 4 of the 5 definitions of genocide, then the interpretation used of those definitions applies to dozens of far worse conflicts. Including the actions of Hamas on October 7th.
I'm uninsterested in your credibility or opinion on wether or not it's a genocide.
Courts have ruled it is. The world has ruled it is. You can skirm all you want, in 6 months you'll say you always thought it was a genocide. Mark my words.
Wether she is or not is not for me to decide - at any rate, her analysis seems to have been absolutely spot on if we are now recognizing it is a genocide, isn't it?
And if you think the UN rapporteur is too biased to do their job correctly, why do you care what the UN does?
> her analysis seems to have been absolutely spot on if we are now recognizing it is a genocide, isn't it?
No, no more than someone who predicts a market crash every day is proven right the one time they nail it. The quality and objectivity of the analysis matters. Not just the conclusion.
A market crash is a one-time event. A genocide is ongoing. This would be like someone claiming since 2003 there was a pedo ring in the upper echelons of society and everyone calling them a liar until...
There's a bit of an IQ test with this stuff. Obviously Israel and Hamas will both say whatever is most advantageous to them - of course one side will claim genocide and one will deny it, neither is meaningful.
A friend was telling me that Gaza has been starving for for 2 years so we looked back on the headlines and they said "brink of starvation" - so like - being on the brink for 2 years means you weren't on the brink?
Lastly Israel is clearly less restrained now than I've ever seen it. But like they were accused of genocide forever. So those accusations were false but now it's really happening? But if they had been restrained all along then they are the moral party?
I am not trying to persuade for a side it's just funny how so many posters here are like "ohhh we have the real and moral information here" when it's obvious that's not even available.
You can be kept on the brink of starvation just like you can keep a cup hanging over the edge of a table. It's a manufactured famine, therefore it can be created with precision. Unlike the potato famine in Ireland, it's controlled and they literally count calories going in (before cutting it to 0).
If your analysis is entirely headline based I can see why you might be confused. There are several levels of starvation, and Israel has progressively put Gaza through each. Complaining at each step is absolutely valid.
Given all the hatred that is going around, I believe the genocide is real. And if it's not real yet, it will be if someone doesn't put a stop to this.
But all the reporting does not add up.
Half the pictures Hamas shows of starving children aren't legitimate. They're children with medical conditions, not in Gaza, or from a different conflict.
The number of people starving to death each day are in the single or low double digits. If what was said was really true, there would be tens of thousands of people dead by now.
And I don't believe a single thing Israel says either. How many tunnels were actually found under hospitals? Definitely at least one. Definitely not all of them.
A little truth makes all the lies more believable.
All the evidence cited is either circular in nature, referencing other agencies and bodies which cite each other, all reinforcing an extremely one-sided ratcheting look at the conflict. Ambiguous statements made by Israeli officials are consistently interpreted in the manner most damning to Israel, and statements of clear genocide made by those who attack Israel are ignored or excused. They cite clearly flawed logic such as the commonly debunked "Israel admits to 83% civilian deaths".
Interestingly enough, I tried to find other cases in which the UN Human Rights Council concluded that a genocide had occurred or was occurring. I found none. Not the Rwanda genocide, not the Ughers, nor Tamil, nor Rohingya, nor Nigeria, nor Chechnya, nor the Congo, nor Darfur, not in Sudan, not ISIS, nor Yemen nor Ethiopia.
While you do have points that these UN bodies do seem to sleep more often than not, one should never, under any circumstance attempt to suggest that what's happening in Gaza aren't crimes against humanity.
A friend of mine is in the Red Cross staff, they had more than 20 casualties since 2021 in Palestine. Their staff was literally shot at because they were doctors.
"never under any circumstances attempt to suggest" anything contrary to what you believe is an unreasonable and weak proposition to an argument.
You are welcome to believe what you want to believe but plenty of people throughout History believed something as strongly and self righteously as you do and turned out dead wrong. To think you are immune to that and suggest that no voice to the contrary should be allowed is ridiculous.
Which side do you think has an interest in shooting doctors?
I'll help you with that. It's not the side that would regularly take Gazan children into Israel for medical treatment before the Gazans started a war against Israeli children. Or do Israeli children mean nothing? Because I personally know two women whose children were burned to death on October 7th.
> Which side do you think has an interest in shooting doctors?
The one shooting doctors.
What happened on October 7 has been a tragedy. 38 children died that day, and you know two of the mothers. I can't even relate with their suffering, in no way I can understand their pain like you do.
But I don't know either any mothers of the 32'000 killed and wounded on the other side.
"One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this."
That's nicely tautological. Hamas shoots at doctors.
> What happened on October 7 has been a tragedy. 38 children died that day, and you know two of the mothers.
Yes. Additionally, I know half a dozen of the hostages personally. My older daughter's classmate, his brother and sister and both parents, were all slaughtered in their home. My younger daughter's teacher was a hostage, he was murdered in Gaza. My son's camp counselor was likewise taken hostage and murdered in Gaza. Shall I continue?
> How many mothers of the 32'000 killed and wounded on the other side you know?
I'm not sure, but I do know a few Gazans who have told me that they lost family members. One just lost an uncle a few days ago, we talked about it. Yes, I talk to Gazans.
We should not call a genocide a genocide because you personally have been impacted by the latest trigger of a long conflict?
I can never understand your pain but for me this reads like bloodlust coming from revenge. That is a path that will never lead to an end of bloodshed.
Given the actions of the Netanyahu government continuously siding with actions prolonging the genocide despite whatever action Hamas takes what do you propose?
What do you think of the colonialists/settlers/occupiers on the West Bank stealing Palestinian land and forcing people from their homes?
> This is absolute straight up lying, you should feel nothing short of shame.
One of the first Hamas Gopro videos of October 7th was the shooting of an ambulance. Shall I find it for you? Also, Hamas stormed the clinic at Beeri and killed the entire staff and patients. And my local hospital has mentioned that one of its doctors was killed while treating the wounded on October 7th.
> As long as it's reckoning for October 7th there's no amount of blood and suffering that will stop your people.
It's not reckoning, it's a war to get our hostages back. Don't like the war? Neither do we. Start pressuring Hamas to return the hostages and the war will end. Or, if you like wars, then continue pressuring Israel to capitulate to the demands of terrorists.
> One of the first Hamas Gopro videos of October 7th was the shooting of an ambulance
Nobody's ever denied that October 7th was a tragedy and that similar things happened. Not even once.
Don't get your point besides "if some of us suffered, it's fine to inflict 1000x the suffering on anybody associated, related or even just in proximity of those who caused us the suffering".
> It's not reckoning
I've never seen a war in which only one side has an army, and the other one loses almost exclusively civilians.
I'd have to check, but I think Israel has killed more children in the past two years than Hamas killed Israelis on October 7. Israel has killed something like 30-40x the number of civilians in the same timeframe.
Hamas is a bunch of evil people. That doesn't justify descending to their level of butchery to exterminate them, especially not when you are so much more efficient at that butchery.
You don't have to check, more Gazan children have died than Israeli children. So by your argument, had Hamas killed more Israeli children then there wouldn't be a problem? I can think of no other reason why you made that argument.
> Israel has killed something like 30-40x the number of civilians in the same timeframe.
You might notice that Hamas was in Israel for less than 1/40 the time that this war has been going on. So per time period, Hamas killed _more_ children than Israel, given the chance. Who do you accuse of genocide now? They've just been denied the chance.
Perhaps. Perhaps if they somehow had the time, means and power to do it, they would have killed as many people on the other side, although this is high speculative as the past decades would have played out very differently anyway.
I'm not sure where you're going with that though. Nobody claims Hamas are kind and gently guys.
Hopefully we are at the beginning of a change, but I doubt this will come only from the UN.
The UN is the only international democratic institution that - even with its many imperfections - prevents the world to fall into complete anarchy. It's quite telling that it gets ignored since so many years by the country that elevates itself as the world defender of democracy, the US.
The UN has voted for decades for ending the embargo towards Cuba. Every year the outcome of the vote, which has always resulted in a great majority demanding the immediate end of the embargo, has been ignored by the US, resulting in millions of Cubans facing extreme economic consequences since many decades. The last time every country except Israel and US voted for ending the embargo (I might be wrong, maybe a single African state abstained).
In all of this, the only seed of joy I see, was seeing the Cubans a couple of years ago, after decades and decades of seeing their economy strangled by the most powerful country on Earth, roll out their own Covid vaccine just at the same time of those of big Pharma - a vaccine that resulted excellent, effective, and cheap. Hats off for the Cubans. Hope to see some other seed like this also in the Palestinians.
> The UN is the only international democratic institution that - even with its many imperfections - prevents the world to fall into complete anarchy. It's quite telling that it gets ignored since so many years by the country that elevates itself as the world defender of democracy, the US.
It's not been ignored the purpose of the UN is for largely irrelevant countries to petition the world powers to maybe consider doing something. The UN has been so successful because it has no real power over players like the USA.
> The UN has voted for decades for ending the embargo towards Cuba.
Ok? I mean the purpose of the UN is for people to suggest stuff to players like the USA not for the USA to actually do what the UN votes for.
It's weird to claim that one country should be forced to trade with another country. International trade is voluntary on both sides. The US isn't responsible for keeping any other country's economy healthy. It's simply not our problem, and Cuban economic problems are a consequence of their own corruption and dogmatic incompetence. Should the US also be forced to trade with, let's say, North Korea?
The UN serves as a valuable diplomatic forum but let's not pretend that is does have or should have any real power or authority.
What people fail to understand about dynamics between countries, is ultimately there is no supreme court or arbiter of truth. The UN doesn't have authority over any powerful country (or non powerful country for that matter).
People seem to have this concept that there is some supra national legal system, or even moral system that can hold a higher truth than what powerful countries want, but there isn't. When it comes to geopolitics, the biggest and most powerful sets the rules and lives by them (or not). The USA has zero motivation to do something the UN wants it to do, if it doesn't itself want to do it. No one is going to hold it to account.
Ultimately - whoever controls the violence can set the rules. For the last 80 years that's been the US. Maybe that is changing, but not quite yet.
The UN isn't an international democratic institution. For the last 20-30 years it's been a powerless theatre. And it didn't have much power before then either. Because ultimately, whoever has the most nukes and the biggest army rules the world.
One hopeful observation is that I actually have seen coverage of the genocide in a local newspaper this time. N=1 of course (and I'm not sure what other local newspapers have been like), but that's more than before.
Can someone help explain, if Israel was attacked by Hamas back in October, what is considered a proper response to that?
Not responding is wrong. Committing genocide is wrong too. Genuinely curious.
I don’t believe questions like that are asked in good faith. Maybe you are the exception, but I have seen too many people begin with exactly this question, and then end up justifying the Gaza genocide.
In case you are asking in good faith—and following the HN guidelines—I suggest you abandon this question and consider that maybe this is the wrong question to ask given the situation. If that is hard, then I ask you to consider that indigenous resistance against settler colonial violence has been a pretext for countless colonial oppression in the past, including many genocides.
Calling someone directly out/impugning their motives instead of responding is actually a violation of the HN guidelines. You can respond to topics, not posters. You are the one in violation.
This isn't the first time I've seem this 'you aren't in good faith' response on this topic, and is partly why again, HN just isn't a place where a real discussion can be had on this subject.
I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to relieve domestic pressure to engage in substantive actions (sanctions, pressuring the US and other suppliers of arms to engage in sanctions, let alone sending peacekeepers or no-fly zones).
Regardless of how much you're personally invested in the topic, this should break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable. Indeed, the US would rather sanction individuals at the ICJ than acknowledge any sort of legitimacy—even as our own politicians accuse Russia of engaging in "war crimes". I have no doubt that they are, in fact, I think that the evidence is quite damning. But the double standard is striking, as is the difference between the footage visible on social media and what is acknowledged when you turn on the TV or open the paper.
> break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable.
this is never going to happen. there is just no practical enforcement mechanism. laws and police works within a sovereign country because the state has the monopoly on violence, this is not true on the international stage. no country will go into war to enforce an ICC/ICJ conviction.
> I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to relieve domestic pressure to engage in substantive actions (sanctions, pressuring the US and other suppliers of arms to engage in sanctions, let alone sending peacekeepers or no-fly zones).
I don't think recognition as a State would really change anything. If at least one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council will veto everything that comes up, the UN won't effectively intervene in the situation. Military intervention in such a case is unlikely, unless at least one permanent member is willing to join an intervention coalition. Looking at conflicts the US has been involved in, it usually lines up around the lines with US maybe with their usual friends vs Locals or Locals and Russia and friends. The only one I found where the pattern was when France started sending arms to Nicaragua while the US was supporting the other side [1]. Unless Russia or China wants to support the Palestinians militarily, or the US decides not to no longer support Israel militarily, there's not much chance of outside intervention here.
Given the outside countries can't effectively intervene, recognizing the state of Palestine at least sends a message, that maybe hopefully influences the US?
> Preventing births within the group: The attack on Gaza’s largest fertility clinic destroyed thousands of embryos, sperm samples, and eggs. Experts told the commission this would prevent thousands of Palestinian children from ever being born.
To be honest, I think this report is reaching.
Also it should be noted that Israel did supply Gaza with necessities before the war. To stop these supplies is something different than restricting access. All that doesn't fit with the meaning of the term genocide, no legal investigation changes that. Of course you should be able to put it in front of a judge, but I don't see it how it can be sensibly argued aside as a tool to put some pressure on Israel.
They have repeatedly hampered the entry of baby formula, a clear pattern of actions to stunt childhood development, increase childhood mortality and dissuade the population from having more children.
Gaza is dependent on Israel's permission. Food aid is provided by the UN and other humanitarian organisations, they require Israel's permission to bring that aid into Gaza and not attack it (n.b. attempts since 2010 to deliver aid by boat, such as the MV Rachel Corrie, have been attacked in international waters and the aid never reached Gaza). Israel destroyed the power and water desalination plants, making Gaza dependent on their supply, which has since been used as a weapon.
Since '93, the range allowed for Palestinian fishing boats has been reduced from 20 to 3 nautical miles by Israeli naval vessels. Because primarily only young fish are found that close to the shore, and because constant damage to infrastructure means untreated wastewater is being dumped close by, it's a pretty bleak picture.
According to the article, nobody actually knows when the attack took place. And the BBC is assuming that it was an Israel attack, even though 1/3 to 1/6 of Hamas rockets fall back into Gaza - that is disingenuous. Furthermore, the single photograph of the clinic shows absolutely zero kinetic damage. How does an Israeli shell or bomb leave no kinetic damage? The Hamas rockets leave little to no kinetic damage as they are fuel-air bombs, not HE.
You can read up about the members of the Pillay commission, the "Top UN legal investigators", yourself. It is just ridiculous. Reminder that thousands of rockets rained on Israel on October 7th.
Crying genocide after such an attack when your enemy retaliates and retaliates very harshly in the context of middle eastern politics will never be reasonable. Hamas is free to surrender and everything would stop tomorrow.
I quoted from the report, you can make up your mind yourself. But you already did anyway.
Pillay is from the Apartheid crew, that just ignores a side of this conflict. A side that is very much not tolerant of everyone else. Bad and unconvincing report.
Reminder that Israel razed hundreds of Palestinian villages to the ground in 1948, and expelled half the Palestinian population from their homeland. Israel has always wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestine of the indigenous population. It has resisted any diplomatic route to a two-state solution, going as far as financing Hamas because Fatah was moving towards a peaceful resolution, and Hamas was seen as an adversary against whom ethnic cleansing would be easier to justify.
Israel is quite literally built on top of the ruins of Palestinian villages. The zionist project has always required an ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, because the project's goal is to build an ethnostate. This is just culminating in the current genocide.
> Israel is quite literally built on top of the ruins of Palestinian villages
The entire region was historically Jewish. As a simple example, consider the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. It is literally built on the ruins of a Jewish temple from BC times. That is long before any Arabs lived in the area, and long before Islam was invented.
There’s also no such thing as a “Palestinian village” because there is no such identity as Palestinian in truth. There’s just Islamic Arabs who tried to take over this land and claim it is their homeland when their homeland is really elsewhere.
> It has resisted any diplomatic route to a two-state solution
There were at least 5 different offers for a two-state solution historically. The people calling themselves “Palestinian” rejected every one of those. The real reason that can be deduced from this, is that they just don’t want a Jewish state to exist anywhere in any capacity.
The problem is the only alternative solution the pro palestinian crowd is suggesting is basically that israel should lie down and die. None of the two faced arab leaders or virtue signalling europeans or hamas supporting UN are making any effort to evacuate gaza. On the absurd pretext that to allow any palestinians to leave gaza would be "ethnic cleansing"!
It's a scandal. They are the only ethnicity in the world which is implictly denied to take refuge (unless you are senior hamas). It's one of the most dehumanising things ever. "stay here and become a casualty statistic because that is the most convenient way to fulfill our political agenda."
If you don't want a Genocide then do literally anything at all to
help actual palestinians and not just the terrorists (by which i include hamas and the plo) who represent them. UNWRA doesn't count since it's sole objective is to make sure that palestinians will always be refugees and needing aid, which is maybe even more dehumanising. Also don't deal with israel consistently in bad faith and then expect them and their supporters to care about what you think.
Just for the record i think this report is a fabrication and for those that say plenty of Israelis oppose what's going on in gaza i will respond that none of them can suggest any better alternative. No one is happy with the war but it's not as though israel is being given a choice. I'm not hearing any voices suggesting an international un coalition take over Gaza because it's a poisoned chalice and everyone would rather criticise then help.
"
251. The Commission’s analysis in this report relates solely to the determination
of genocide under the Genocide Convention as it relates to the responsibility of the
State of Israel both for the failure to prevent genocide, for committing genocide
against the Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023 and for the failure to punish
genocide. The Commission also notes that, while its analysis is limited to the
Palestinians specifically in Gaza during the period since 7 October 2023, it
nevertheless raises the serious concern that the specific intent to destroy the
Palestinians as a whole has extended to the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory,
that is, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on Israeli authorities’ and
Israeli security forces’ actions therein, and to the period before 7 October 2023. The
events in Gaza since 7 October 2023 have not occurred in isolation, as the
Commission has noted. They were preceded by decades of unlawful occupation and
repression under an ideology requiring the removal of the Palestinian population
from their lands and its replacement.
252. The Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Israeli
authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to
commit the following actus reus of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip, namely (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
253. On incitement to genocide, the Commission concludes that Israeli
President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defence
Minister Yoav Gallant, have incited the commission of genocide and that Israeli
authorities have failed to take action against them to punish this incitement.
The Commission has not fully assessed statements by other Israeli political and
military leaders, including Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and
Minister for Finance Bezalel Smotrich, and considers that they too should be
assessed to determine whether they constitute incitement to commit genocide.
254. On the mens rea of genocide, the Commission concludes that statements
made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent. In addition,
the Commission concludes that the pattern of conduct is circumstantial evidence
of genocidal intent and that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference
that could be drawn from the totality of the evidence. Thus, the Commission
concludes that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have had and
continue to have the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
255. The Commission concludes that the State of Israel bears responsibility
for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure
to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."
Which is completely based on trying to analyze the reactions of politicians to an attack that included mass killings of civilians, intense brutality and mass rape. surprise surprise these are filled with anger and do not read like a swedish minister reaction to migrant birds. These are not different than the USA post 9/11.
Even if you take these statements, and add everything that happened on the ground for the last two years, comparing it to the Armenian, Rawandian or Jewish genocides is a joke of epic proportions.
It's a very minor war even in Middle Eastern terms, compared to the recent Syrian or Yemen civil wars or the American involvement in Iraq
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics... unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
I wonder the same. It’s odd to see it still here given the low quality of the discussion. And it is flooded by mischaracterizations, misinformation, and one-sided hyperbolic takes. I wonder what the right space or format is to have debates like this but in an effective way, rather than sides trying to win.
However dismayed you are by the low quality of the discussion, I promise you it bothers us even more. It's awful.
Not only that but whenever a thread like this appears, tomhow and I end up spending all day on it, which is by far the worst part of the job. I don't mean to complain—that would be grotesque, given the suffering that's going on—but just to say that it would be much easier if HN did not discuss this or similar topics at all.
But I don't think that's an option. It wouldn't be consistent with the values or the mandate of this site as I understand them, and it's our duty to try to be as true to those as we can. I want to be able to look back and say we did our best at that, even though the outcomes are so bad.
The upshot of this is that there's no good option and no way out. Maybe experiencing that is the best we can do to honor what's happening. It feels somehow congruent with the reality of the situation being discussed, albeit in the trivial form that everything on an internet forum takes.
This is politics and therefore probably off-topic for hn. It not being tech-related is irrelevant.
An argument could be made that it is an "interesting new phenomenon", but the post is most likely to result in tedious flamewars regardless and so should probably be killed.
> 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.
I generally find HN discussions pretty interesting, but this particular topic seems to just be two groups who have zero chance of changing their minds hurling misinformation and propaganda at each other.
I would agree with you if we were in 1994 and this was about Rwanda.
Those tower blocks in Gaza that were felled on the anniversary of 9/11 were not taken down with machetes. We have got AI assisted targeting going on, with all of your favourite cloud service providers delivering value to their shareholders thanks to sales to the IDF.
The corporation that once had 'don't be evil' as their mission statement are suckling on the IDF teat along with Amazon, IBM, Microsoft and Cisco.
Israel: Surrender or we'll destroy your city
Hamas: Only if you let us rebuild and prepare the next war
Israel: Starts destroying the city by bombing emptied buildings, these having received warning from Israel beforehand
UN: Oh look, a genocide
Bottom-of-the-barrel antisemitism ought to be the easiest thing in the world to avoid, regardless of your views or feelings about the ongoing situation. In any case, there's no place for it on Hacker News—never has been and never will.
---- original comment: ----
rimunroe is correct, you've repeated a classic antisemitic trope. We ban accounts that post like that, so please don't post like that again.
It's entirely possible, and ought to be entirely easy, to make any substantive point you have without any of that.
I wouldn’t call those intentional. Collateral damage in a defensive war against terrorists who are hiding among civilians is different from intentionally seeking to kill children as your only objective.
I agree that thousands of children have been killed in Gaza - by both Israel and Hamas. Trying to pin all of them on Israel only encourages Hamas to kill more.
Even if Israel is definitively shown to be genocidal, what the hell do you do with that? Because the result of that determination is that you now have a conflict where both sides are genocidal against the other. How do you pick a side in that scenario without implicitly supporting genocide? Do you try to determine whether Palestinian lives are worth more or less than Israeli/Jewish lives, using your own arithmetic? Try to argue that some forms of genocide aren't really genocide when you "really think about it"?
I think it's an impossible problem from an ethics perspective.
My echo chamber? I read the Gazan and other Arab telegram channels in Arabic. I write back and forth with people in Gaza (Gazans, who live there) every few days. You levy at me unfounded accusations.
So as long as there is one Hamas left standing, everyone around must die. This is what you mean?
Edit: can the non-Hamas surrender and avoid getting killed? They can't and the situations on the ground aren't that different. A Warzaw and Gazan survivor would have a lot in common.
Can the non-Hamas surrender and live? No, they can just stay and die. Tell me, what should a non-Hamas member in Gaza do right now to avoid getting bombed?
> what should a non-Hamas member in Gaza do right now to avoid getting bombed
Evacuate when told to by the IDF. It's terrible, but it's better than being bombed.
But you are correct - the responsibility to end the war and prevent further civilian casualties lies squarely with Hamas. Pressure them to return the hostages, don't pressure Israel to capitulate to terrorists.
Not so much "lies" as "a people having a genocide committed against them does not make them constitutionally incapable of ever committing one themselves in the future." For several reasons, including that it was different people (only 7% of Holocaust survivors are still alive) and that 'nation,' as a conceptual construct, still carries the same weaknesses that it did when a relatively few voices in Germany used that construct to rally the masses to commit atrocities against their own citizens (and the people in their temporarily-conquered territory) for being 'the wrong kind' of people.
"It's not wrong when we're doing it" is an old, old failing of human empathy and sense of justice.
zionists still trying to deceive people with misleading analogies while pretending that their apartheid ethno-state can just start its origin story at october 7th [1]. I wonder what kind of individual still buys into these false and lazy zionist narratives.
255. The Commission concludes that the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
I see that the person we replied to edited their comment. It originally said something along the lines of "that just says they failed to prevent genocide."
Using future population estimates that assume no conflict as a source for an "increasing population" is very sloppy genocide denialism.
> During the 1994 Rwandan genocide
During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Israel continued their decades long support of the Hutu government, and "Israel continued sending weapons — including guns, ammunition, and grenades — to the Hutus as the genocide was taking place."
https://www.972mag.com/rwanda-genocide-hutu-israel/
> AI responses may include mistakes.
Oh I see, I'm arguing with an Israeli genocide denialism bot. Great.
I literally wrote "AI summary" at the top because I copy and pasted it from google. If there was a genocide there would be many more palestinians dead, full stop. There would not be evacuation zones, humanitarian corridors, leaflets, announced bombings, etc. It would be trivial to simply kill everyone in Gaza, it is very obviously within their power.
Israel is fully dependent on the support it receives from western governments, and it knows that support will vanish if it wages a loud open genocide and brags about it. So no, it's not trivially in their power to kill everyone in Gaza, as Israel would cease to exist if they did that.
Even according to Hamas own numbers, 60,000 Palestinians died, 200 from starvation. That's very low compared to real genocides. That's very low considering Israel killed an estimated 10,000 of Hamas soldiers. That's pretty good accuracy in all modern standards of war.
A 1:6 ratio for civilian deaths is not a good civilian casualty ratio by the standards of modern warfare. Russia in Ukraine is currently achieving a rate of about 1:3, and that's a country that's currently considered rather brutal as far as civilian casualty rates go. The US in the Iraq War managed urban operations with kill ratios better than 1:1.
According to Wikipedia between 25 and 33 thousand Bosnians and Croats were killed in the Bosnian genocide. Thus your argument doesn't hold, unless you contend that there was no genocide in Bosnia either.
Are you arguing that whether something does or doesn't genocide can the boiled down to a percentage. As it turns out, a lot of people disagree with that view.
Yep, it’s odd to call it a genocide when their population has been growing continuously, and significantly. Israel can’t both be a highly effective genocidal force and also failing to actually succeed at the outcomes of a genocide.
> I find it funny people still find the UN legitimate. They still haven't criticised Hamas attack
I find it funny that you have to lie so much. They did, it's easy to find. My father is from a Christian orphanage in east Jerusalem. My grandmother hosted sisters and priests from Israel who worked in schools, hospice and orphanage all over the two countries. UN school programs there had a lot of issues, but being religious (Hamas was a religious group before being a terrorist one) or close to Hamas wasn't one (having no heating in schools during winter and having to sometime amputate toes from 10 year old was probably the biggest issue that I remember).
United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21 (Oct. 27th 2023):
> Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians,
including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction
This resolution didn’t mention the IDF either, nor any other Zionist terror groups. Why do you want the UN to single out Hamas here? The wording was quite clear and it is easy for anybody reading this who they were referring to.
This resolution came 20 days into what would eventually be known as the Gaza genocide. The IDF had enganged in dozens of massacres at this point. The number of Palestinian victims was already over 6x that of the Oct 7 massacres (7326 when the resolution was published).
If the resolution was going to mention Hamas, it would also have to mention the IDF. The wording was deliberate for that reason.
the only attempt on genocide was hamas attempt to kill as much jews and infadels as possible. but you glance over this, because this genocide you approve of.
here is nice quote [0] : "for the past two years theHamas leadership had been talking about implementing "the last promise" (alwaed al'akhir) – a divine promise regarding the end of days, when all human beings will accept Islam.
Sinwar and his circle ascribed an extreme and literal meaning
to the notion of "the promise, " a belief that pervaded all their
messages: in speeches, sermons, lectures in schools and
universities. The cardinal theme was the implementation of the
last promise, which included the forced conversion of all
heretics to Islam, or their killing."
everything that followed would be eventually known as largest brainwashing by mainstream and social media.
For an organization ostensibly concerned with education to violence everywhere, that's a LOT of board members with direct connections to Israel.
I also think it's common sense that if an occupying force deliberately ensures your living conditions become ever worse, shoots your friends and family to death for throwing stones and eventually obliterates entire families, that you don't exactly need textbooks to develop hatred.
it's almost like if population is educated for violence for 50 years, it will behave violently and it will result in counter action from "occupying force"
on the other side, Israeli population is been subjected to palestinian violence for extended period. Pretty much everybody was either target of it or lost somebody to it.
i am talking about systemic things in education system. not about random anecdotes. also good chunk of israeli population (and even bigger chunk of those serving in army) is secular and whatever random rabi says means nothing.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Does it need to be condemned? Is Hamas a legitimate, recognised state and member of the UN? Israel is a sovereign state and member of the UN; it is therefore subject to higher standards. It should leave the UN or withdraw its staff, incl. its ambassador, if it does not like the UN.
Given the Israeli military are defacto state sponsored terrorists (see e.g. their active support of settler violence on the West Bank if you want to avoid Gaza related complaints). That means every single company in Israel is employing terrorists.
Sure. The Israel military rapes, kills, slaughter, and rob Gaza and West bank. The IDF is exactly like Hamas sure. /s if you didn't understand.
The Israelis live in the West Bank. The IDF is there to protect them. There is no violence whatsoever from the settlers. It's pure propaganda. There were a few rare times of some violence, but it's nothing compared to what the Palestinians do. Last week, two Palestinians crossed the border and murdered 6 people and 20+ injured on a bus shooting in Jerusalem. They even kill each other.
Each time the IDF comes into Palestinians "cities" to catch terrorists, they throw rocks on them.
Can't find it on the source you provided. The source you provided also justifies terrorists cries about their home being destroyed. It's interesting from where they get these numbers, from Palestinians?
about year ago PA tried to remove Hamas and other charity organizations for Jenin and other cities (that it typically can't entered) but failed and asked Israel to intervene what Israel did.
So you have interesting situation, when Palestinian authority asks Israel to kill palestinians and than Israel is blamed for killing palestinians.
I really do. (personal note: I never know if I should engage with these trolls, given them more visibility, or simply ignore them, risking seeing their propaganda spread)
> Again, this is an unreliable source. It provides Palestinians testimonies. In Gaza the amount of untruthful testimonies is disgusting.
Yeah we get it, all Arabs are liars. Anyone who has sympathy for them is a liar. The Sde Teiman video is a fake and also the soldiers in it are all heroes. Israel has the most moral army in the world. IDF soldiers never post TikToks of themselves committing war crimes and laughing about it. It's not as if a person could spend 5 seconds online and find video evidence of these atrocities.
Sde Teiman MAYBE was real (there is still no proof, and it still being investigated by ISRAEL), but we're talking about terrorists whom murdered and raped people, not citizens.
TikTok is the most propagned platform currently. Not only about Gaza, but about everything. In the mean time, all the injured/starved citizens that were pictured and put on news papers were all a lie. I can also tell you I see many, many videos of sustained shops, rich food, candies and whatever first-world country has in Gaza. Give me one video please.
It's evident for example that this thin child that was put on the front page of NYT was actually suffering from a genetic disorder. It's also evident that the pictures of Gaza citizens starving with their bowls out asking for food, was actually a complete lie (you can find pictures from the side, and not only from the front). Yet you still see those images on TikTok.
IDF is state sponsored; they (and Israel more broadly) have a responsibility to comport themselves within the bounds of international law. If they choose not to, then they are behaving like terrorists.
Does it seem plausible to you that during the years of the Syrian civil war, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Tigray war in Ethiopia, the war in South Sudan and countless others (conflicts which, in total, claimed the lives of millions), Israel would commit war crimes at a ratio of 2:1 against the entire world, combined?
In contrast, the number of deaths from both Israeli and Palestinian sides in the same time period was several hundreds.
You forgot, the West Bank, under apartheid, extreme settler violence, constant and massive home expropriation, is also khamas, although no khamas ever walked on it.
It's part of a broader phenomena: feelings over facts. Doesn't matter how many commissions say it's genocide and how much evidence is presented, people don't "feel" it is true, therefore it is not true. Zero difference between these people, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxers.
Seeing the number of flagged comments, and going from past discussions where any discussion seen as pushback was flagged, this discussion really doesn't belong on hacker news.
The infrastructure for genocide needs a lot of technology and technology related subject. The victims of genocides include technology workers, hobbyists and hackers. No doubt there are HN members who are current victims of the ongoing genocide. They deserve our sympathy and their existence needs to be acknowledged.
The problem is there obviously isn't any discussion happening. People are so entrenched on one side or the other and that's pretty apparent by this comment section. Everyone wants to virtue signal without taking any responsibility. The unfortunate reality of this situation is that it's extremely complex and weaves in a lot of historical context. But nobody cares about nuance anymore it's all just "killing bad!" within the framework of whatever controversial event is on the inciters mind. Well duh, but how did we get here? If we can't stop and consider both sides constructively then clearly we're never going to get anywhere and shit like this will just continue.
That's essentially the pro-Israel argument for decades (Including the opinion that killing somehow weren't always bad). It hasn't prevented the current situation.
But don't let that stop you. Feel free to make a nuanced and well-researched counterargument why the UN report is wrong.
I'm not sure what you're pointing to in my response to attribute it to Israeli support. I was attempting to make light of the fact that 'discussion' requires two sides. Right now both sides live in a different reality. I am in no way condoning Israel's genocide against Palestinians. But to say Israel is the only one at fault for this situation and to only point fingers to one side betrays the historical facts of the situation. I in no way tried to downplay the situation or play sides so please don't twist my words as if I did.
The problem is that there is a massive power imbalance in the conflict and insisting on "both sides" without acknowledging that is itself muddying the waters.
Accusations of "one-sidedness" for everything that doesn't follow the Israeli narrative of the conflict has been a standard defense for decades, last employed against the two-states UN resolution.
That's why I find (naive) insistence on seeing "both sides" problematic in this conflict. By all means, do see both sides, but see them with their respective amounts of power and historical context.
I 100% agree with you here. Which is why it's important to have the acknowledgement that this isn't an isolated situation. There is a 'one-sidedness' for Israel against the Palestinians, in the same way that there's a 'one-sidedness' for the entirety of the Arab nations against the Israeli's. For as long as Israel has existed they've been fighting against their own genocide. I haven't seen anyone acknowledging that? Or that the Arab nations were the ones to provoke the Israeli's in the first place? I find no love for Israel, but we make it waaaay too easy for them to justify these positions. Like it or not it's not as simple as everyone seems to make it out to be. The western nations and the other Arabs were the ones to give up on the Palestinians first, but now all of a sudden we care? Like I said, it's all virtue signaling.
> For as long as Israel has existed they've been fighting against their own genocide. I haven't seen anyone acknowledging that? Or that the Arab nations were the ones to provoke the Israeli's in the first place?
It was so obvious that you were trying to carefully push Zionist propaganda from the very start, but here you went from 0 to 100% hasbara real quick. This isn't 1990, you won't get away with this kind of blatant Zionist revisionism; there are about 10000+ academic articles and videos now that teach the history in painful detail. So give it a rest with your lazy propaganda.
It's sad that we can't take an objective look at the facts of the matter without trying to point to one side and saying it's propaganda. Like is it so hard to say that both sides did bad things? I have no problem acknowledging that Israel is being the ultimate bully right now, is it not okay to say they have a reason? Or should we just ignore all reasoning and condem "killing bad" like I initially said this would devolve to? The US literally has the same problem right now it's kind of insane. How can you try to swat away historical facts, then in the same breath link me a random master's thesis from 1977... Like can we just go to Wikipedia, start from the beginning and then disagree over the facts that actually happened instead of trying to see it through the lens of some 20s something from the 70s?
so after trying to mislead people with outright lies and historical revisionism based on zionist fantasies, you are trying to "both sides" a livestream genocide and about a century of brutal zionist colonialism. That's your strategy.
>How can you try to swat away historical facts
The cognitive dissonance of Zionists needs to be studied in Universities across the world. You are straight up lying into people's faces and in the same breath projecting your own behavior on others "trying to 'swat away historical facts'". It's truly astonishing.
Sorry, can you point out exactly where I've lied and how? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire history of this conflict goes back to the UN partition plan in 47, which established a Jewish and Palestinian state. Which then lead to the 47-48 civil war, which from everything I've found relating to it, the Arab's were the ones to retaliate against the Jews in the region which started the war and it's been basically tit for tat ever since. A Palestinian petition to the Security Council in 48 even said this:
"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
I have no issue discussing this situation, in fact that was the whole point of my original statement. Which is that most people seem too emotionally attached to this situation to the point where they can't even have a proper discussion without trying to talk down to me about a position I don't even hold.
>Sorry, can you point out exactly where I've lied and how?
I already quoted that exact part and even referenced the academic work which elaborated on it in detail. It was also not a "random" master thesis, it is academic work that is cited by the United States Government.
>Correct me if I'm wrong
"Entertain my Zionist revisionism". I've heard variations of your hasbara for 2 decades. It's insane that you still think that you can just lie in people's faces when everybody can just fact check you in a jiffy. You obviously don't care about the facts, that's why you persist in trying to deceive people with Zionist revisionism, but for others who happen to stumble upon this convo here some elaboration that concisely debunks these Zionist talking points:
For anyone who is more interested in a comprehensive study of the history, Zachary Foster is a jewish historian whose research can be found at palestinenexus.com of which he is the founder of.
I would go back to the founding principle of Zionism, and claim that the start of the conflict was when Zionists decided to colonize Palestine and found their own nation state on other people’s lands.
But if you insist on starting with the Palestinian civil war then you will soon find that a lot of Palestinians were expelled from their lands and never granted the right of return. It was not merely the partition, but the fact the international human rights granted the right of return for Palestinians illegally expelled, but this international human rights was promptly denied to Palestinians and has been till this day. There is no tit for tat here, as Zionists have not been illegally displaced and Zionists don’t have their rights of return denied to them.
I'm starting with 47 on the basis of the Jewish/Arab conflict. If we claim that the idea of Zionism started the conflict in the area then it doesn't seem like the history fully supports that idea. Jews in the late 1800s were getting worried about the antisemitism in Europe and wanted their own solution to "The Jewish Question" which to them was the formation of their own state. There were even talks about settling in different parts of Africa. But it wasn't until the Balfour Declaration that Zionism was completely focused on Palestine, mostly because the British didn't know what to do with the region after defeating the Ottoman Empire in the region.
>There is no tit for tat here, as Zionists have not been illegally displaced and Zionists don’t have their rights of return denied to them.
The claim Zionists make here is that the land was originally Jewish land to begin with. History does support this claim as the Roman Empire took over Judaea in the early first century and then subsequently exterminated and enslaved the Jews in the region renaming the area to Syria Palaestina about 100 years later.
As far as I understand, they've made many offers to release the hostages in exchange for their own people or for other concessions. You can track the negotiations pretty well, although occasionally the diplomats get bombed for some reason.
Diplomats - who don't even live in the strip - were recently (unsuccessfully) bombed.
If Hamas wants to end the war (or supposed genocide) then they can release the hostages with no additional demands. The fact that the supposed genocide victims choose to continue the war is quite the sign that this is not genocide, in what other situation would a victim choose to continue a war that is a genocide against his people?
Why would Netanyahu stop the war? It is the only pressure on Hamas.
The way war usually works, is the side that feels it has something to loose, sues for peace by making concessions. However the international backing of Hamas has ensured them that they have nothing to loose, and everything to gain, by attacking the Jewish state.
it's not a war Netanyahu is killing innocent people and taking a full population hostage.
Also, most of the people in Gaza are not Hamas members and are regular civilians. What Natanyahu is doing is basically analog to the following:
A killer take a member of your family as a hostage (Hamas in this case is the killer) so you decide to kill a member of their family every hour until they release your beloved one. Do you think that this is acceptable or are you trying to make it acceptable?
Gaza isn’t just “regular civilians”. When Israel stepped away from Gaza, those civilians VOTED for Hamas. They opted for the fundamentalist, reprehensible charter that Hamas has. Sure you can claim that younger residents were not voting in that election - but they’re part of the same population and culture that empowers Hamas and Islamic terrorism. They’re not the same but they aren’t unlinked either.
> A killer take a member of your family as a hostage (Hamas in this case is the killer) so you decide to kill a member of their family every hour until they release your beloved one. Do you think that this is acceptable or are you trying to make it acceptable?
This is not what is happening. Israel has gone through painstaking effort to avoid collateral damage as much as is practical when you are dealing with terrorists hiding among a willing civilian population. If they wanted to, they could have easily leveled the entire city in the first couple days of this conflict, which obviously did not happen. They’re not “deciding to kill a member of their family”. They’re contains the security risk to Israel and its residents with as little collateral damage as possible.
Do you know why you have so many videos of buildings being destroyed in the Gaza strip? Because Israel warns away civilians before destroying them. Doesn't sound to me like Israel is trying to kill civilians.
I don't want to downplay the atrocities going on in the current conflicts, but this sort of comment deserves some perspective.
About 70 million people were killed in WW2, as of the present day about 1 million have died in the war Russia is waging against Ukraine and about 70k people have died in the Israeli/Palestine conflict. The horrors are most certainly real. But WW3 this era is most certainly not, that's thankfully off by an order of magnitude.
The World Wars were called World Wars because of the number conflicts and the powers involved. While the casualties and damage has been lower, it seems like the powers are at least indirectly involved at the moment.
If you look back through history this has been the case since at least the Cold War, though. All the proxy hot wars in the Cold War, for example, back when the world was bi-polar. Now it’s multipolar with similar proxy wars.
The Phony War was the phase between the fall of Poland (took ~1 month) and the invasion of France, where the dominant phase of the war was actually taking place in Norway.
The best way to teach history would be to make politicians dig slit trenches and then shell them for a few days. Anything less than that people will always end up regurgitating ethno nationalist bullshit or "geopolitics".
There is no discussion only mass flagging for anyone who isnt in lockstep on this. This is why politics is usually a subject to be avoided.
I am sure i will be flagged despite completely agreeing with the UN here but if any real change is to happen, minds must be changed which mass flagging does nothing to help. It only further entrenches people. But hey, at least it feels good right? Righteous and all that.
For those who disagree with the UN here, id be happy to change your mind. The us should not be involved in any of this.
Comments on this post are disabled for new accounts, but in the era of anti-BDS regulation and other measures aimed specifically at curtailing practical freedom of speech surrounding this conflict, can we really comment freely on this without anonymity? The vast majority (38/50) of US states have passed some form of anti-BDS legislation. We can also expect corporate retaliation against employees who speak about this issue in a "wrong way".
> Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" ... Primarily, UN Watch denounces what it views as anti-Israel sentiment at the UN and UN-sponsored events.
True. And in the interest of balancing the claims of the critics, I offer up the observation that UN Watch is "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" (AFP article: Capella, Peter. "UN Gaza probe chief underlines balanced approach." 7-Jul-2009. https://web.archive.org/web/20111222162658/https://www.googl...).
Not 100% sure, but that one was posted all over as they tried to pin it on Israel. It could have been another, unfortunately many children are dying right now.
Unwatch is, and has always been, critical of everything the UN does with regards to Israel. Had the UN made one statement like "Israel should not arbitrarily detain children and hold them without fair trials", I am pretty sure unwatch would twist it into antisemitism.
If I want to understand any position I would look for first sources. Say I want to understand why Russian invaded Ukraine, I would seek out Russian sources. When I try to understand the Palestinian position, I seek out Palestinian sources.
The beautiful thing about intellectual honesty and openness is that you don't have to agree with any position. You can expose yourself to things that deeply conflict with your personal values and walk away with a deeper understanding of why you value what you value, and how to refute ideas that you strongly disagree with.
To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge. You're saying that the very reason to dismiss it, to not even bother entertaining its arguments is because it is Israeli and no other reason. Beyond that, you are even arguing that any claims of prejudice can be dismissed outright on the basis of one thing that one Israeli Minster once said [allegedly].
Quite simply Israelis and Jews are not the same group, otherwise you would be holding all Jews on the planet responsible for this genocide. Dismissing the source for being Israeli is not antisemitic.
There are many examples of Israeli sources lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA to the unconscionable excuse of burying medics and the ambulances they were in, to avoid wild dogs eating them.
Israeli sources rarely offer evidence to refute the claims presented in this report, and a cry of antisemitism, as stated, conflates Judeism with Israeli nationality, hence these sources are worthless at best.
Which are not validated by the UN, Norway etc.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148821
If the claims were valid, countries would not have restarted funding to UNRWA. Simple.
I note you've not denied the issues with claims of antisemitism which are important.
I was referring to your conflation of Israelis with Jews, and calling dismissal of an Israeli news source antisemitic, which it is not.
I'm saying that a biased Israeli news source is less valid than the actions of dozens of countries, which decided to restart funding.
It is telling that UN votes for a ceasefire are only opposed by the US, Israel and a handful of client states. This is a genocide, and most countries seem to agree on that.
First, I think you are conflating two different authors in this thread.
Second, you dismissed what you deemed to be Israeli sources as "lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA". I brought up evidence otherwise - specifically that their claims are not baseless. Dismiss _that_ as biased all you want, but its just links to social media posts from Hamas members. Members of Hamas that also work for UNRWA in some fashion.
We do agree that the US and Israel standing alone is telling. But we will disagree on what it means. For me it confirms just how morally bankrupt the United Nations is. I see no epistemological value in just conforming to the majority when I see clear evidence otherwise.
"To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge."
We agree it is an Israeli source.
All the unwatch site does is accuse Israel's critics of being antisemites. When you can't respond to the message, attack the messenger. Accuse them of being antisemitic and being funded by Hamas.
You are aware that Shulamit Alloni was on the extreme left and was criticizing this supposed misuse of Antisemitism, this is not some playbook
The american equivalent would be to quote Bernie Sanders saying "America is fascist" and then saying, see? therefore the USA system of government is fascism, even Congress agrees!
Of course ignoring that Hamas was deliberately funded by Israel to cause a split between the politics of the West Bank and Gaza to prevent a unified political authority in Palestine.
I can well imagine a parallel universe where Israel gave them NO money whatsoever. You know what would have happened? Hamas would do the usual Islamic fundamentalist thing. Form a terrorist group and attack Israel. And then media commentators and intellectuals would accuse Israel of failing to help Hamas get put on the right path by helping them at the start, and instead Israel's inaction was like strangling a baby in the cradle. Typical Israel! Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I for one will be holding my representatives responsible who continue to vote for the US to enable a genocide. The videos coming out of Gaza have turned me and many others into single issue voters.
> The videos coming out of Gaza have turned me and many others into single issue voters.
Ironically, that was one of the biggest campaign points and voter sentiment on which people flipped to Red. We all know what happened.
People didn't flip to red so much as blue voters in swing states sitting on their hands and abstaining from voting. Now they're looking down the barrel of authoritarianism and they're still unwilling to vote unless Gaza is a fully solved problem. The cruel irony is that this behavior is worsening the situation in Gaza.
Couldn't the Democrats change their positions so that they align with and accommodate popular positions and win elections. I don't think most of the (rather large block) of folks I know who abstained wanted a fully solved problem, they wanted the US to stop funding Israel and that is a position that the Democratic party could have taken if they had chosen to do so.
If only the blue representatives would resolve this tension by pulling support for a now internationally-recognised genocide! :( I suppose that option is just too radical to put on the table.
Yep. It really is that simple.
https://jewishcurrents.org/chuck-schumer-cannot-meet-the-mom...
The Biden administration brokered and pressured Israel into a ceasefire that asymmetrically disfavored them. Israel exchanged 30 Hamas militants per Israeli hostage. The ceasefire outlined a permanent resolution to the conflict, including Israel's full withdrawal from Gaza. They also pressured Israel to keep aid channels open during the war, which is exceptionally obvious now given significantly longer blockades and that famine broke out under Trump. The 2006 withdrawal from Gaza and Oslo Accords were also brokered by America. Israel would not have agreed to any of this without any security reassurances in the form of military aid.
On the other hand, there is no guarantee that completely cutting off ties with Israel, would make anything better for Gazans. While it's possible there would be fewer civilian casualties, it's also possible there would be more if Israel switched to from precision strikes to ground invasions and dumb weapons.
You've thought through the full foreign policy implications for pulling aid from Israel overnight? I'm not sure why "less bad" on your pet issue isn't enough, especially when you're up against Trump, who has made posts suggesting resorts and golden statues of himself in Gaza.
> You've thought through the full foreign policy implications for pulling aid from Israel overnight?
I don’t think many people are thinking through now especially the one at the top of power chain, otherwise we’d not have witnessed child charades like invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama, as well as overnight gutting of USAID.
And that was always known to have been a counter-productive protest. There's nothing ironic about this. They were told. They didn't care.
It was unambiguously clear that no matter how bad you felt Obama/Biden/Harris were on Israel, Trump was/would be worse.
If every single human life is worth saving (and it is), it's indisputable that Trump is worse for Gaza than Harris would have been.
It was the ultimate Trolley Problem, and a bunch of progressives acted like pulling the switch on move the trolley is NEVER acceptable regardless of how many lives it saves...
The Dems being willing to lose elections rather than meet voter expectations, says more about them than it does any particular voting or non voting group.
The trolley problem is an oversimplification. What we have is actually a repeated trolley problem, where picking the least of two evils gives the “less evil” party a near infinite amount of leverage over you to demand your loyalty regardless of whether they give in to any of your requests. The “less evil” party is in effect holding the people tied to the tracks hostage in your trolley problem. Because “less evil” is still evil, society decays no matter which way you flip the switch which leads to a population prone to fascism. The neoliberals are to blame more than anyone else for the situation we’re in today. They love to deflect but they are complicit in everything going wrong right now.
Wait what happened? Was it that people who typically vote blue voted against those who supported Israel? As a Muslim and staunch supporter of Palestine, I didn't think that many people turned red because of this, at least not enough to swing the election. Wayne County, which has Dearborn Michigan (the city with the largest population proportionally of Muslims), stayed blue. I figured if Dearborn couldn't tip the scales any which way then the issue was probably not something worth campaigning on in terms of demographics
The bigger factor was people staying home because they refused any compromise on the issue. For races that swing depending on turnout, this was enough to tip those races red. Hard to say whether this impacted the Presidential election, but it probably did affect some House and Senate races.
> that was one of the biggest campaign points and voter sentiment on which people flipped to Red
This is nonsense outside Michigan. And to the extent this happened, I'd have to say pro-Palestinian voters in swing states casting with the guy who initiated the Muslim ban and recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital essentially communicated that they were fine throwing millions of people in the Middle East under the bus to satisfy their vanity.
Even Wayne County, Michigan, which has Dearborn, stayed blue.
Though I was honestly surprised at how much of my Muslim community was so anti-Harris that they voted for Trump. Harris may be pro-Israel, but Trump is anti-almost everything else we stand for.
> how much of my Muslim community was so anti-Harris that they voted for Trump
I'm honestly split between pro-Palestinian Arab-American Trump voters and soybean-farming Trump voters as the stupidest voting blocks of 2024. Not only are you helping put someone in power who is so obviously going to work against your interests. You've also removed yourself from the other party's table where your issue might have gained priority down the road.
Flipping the U.S. really is the key to ending this conflict. The U.S. reliably uses its security council veto to nix any meaningful UN response and the U.S. remains, by far, the biggest supplier of arms to the IDF. If the US were to stop veto'ing everything and cut off the IDF's supply of, at least, some types of weapons, the new ground assault would likely end quickly.
Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen. Netanyahu has, to date, handled Trump deftly and Rubio's current presence in Israel seems to be aimed at offering support to the ground offensive, not opposition. I honestly have no idea what kind of backlash it would take to shake U.S. support for this genocide.
There's definitely a generational gap going in the US. Support for Israel is not popular among the younger generation in the US, and there's a good deal of voters in their 20s and 30s for whom support for Israel a red line in candidates. But older generations tend to be staunchly in favor of Israel, and too much of the gerontocratic political class thinks that pro-Israel uber alles is the key to winning votes.
It is worth noting that Andrew Cuomo, in a desperate last-minute gamble to boost support in the NYC mayoral race, has come out against Israel. Considering that much of the attacks on Mamdani have focused on his support for Palestine (construing him as antisemitic), it's notable that other candidates also seem to think that being anti-Israel is actually the vote winner for moderates right now.
I wouldn't label this as "support for Israel"/"against Israel". One can support Israel without supporting Israel's current approach. Many within Israel are not happy with Netanyahu's methods, and presumably they are not against Israel.
I understand that that's the current shorthand, but it seems inaccurate and unnecessarily polarizing to me.
This is what puzzles me - ppl keep railing about being pro or anti Israel and it's overly simplistic and also not really accurately describing things. It's more pro/anti Likud or Kahanists, or really at heart a right vs left wing divide. There's still plenty of Labor or more progressive elements of the Israeli public who are against what Netanyahu and his political allies are doing.
Unfortunately, that is the reality of how the loudest voices globally want to frame the issue, probably for their own political reasons. That it is possible to be pro-Israel but criticize Likud is inconvenient for those trying to paint an entire country with a single brush. Ironically, the hard-line anti-Israel stances end up forcing such people to keep the criticism quiet.
> One can support Israel without supporting Israel's current approach.
I think you're overthinking this. We're taking about a country committing genocide here. You either support them or you don't.
Mossad have actually warned the Netanyahu government of this, saying U.S support for Israel is slipping away and now might be the best time to implement a two state solution, while it can still be as one sided as possible in favour of Israel. Netanyahu has chosen to ignore this.
Alternatively, it could also be seen as the best time to implement a 0 hamas solution.
whats actually going on with the mayoral race? is cuomo running as an independent against mamdani?
That gap between support of Israel across age groups existed historically AFAIK, although the margins were narrower.
More worrying for Israel is that it's becoming a partisan issue. That goes to both ends - previously unthinkable, unwavering support under Republicans but a very short leash under the Democrats.
> More worrying for Israel is that it's becoming a partisan issue.
A highly salient political issue becoming partisan is a good thing in a representative democracy, as that is the only thing that makes it possible for the public to influence it by general election votes.
In FPTP, this often ends up backfiring. A politicized issue quickly becomes a polarized issue - the other side takes the opposite view, and both sides then race to the extremes. Compromise becomes less and less possible, because then each side sees it as a defeat. Nothing ends up done.
Why would we expect any desirable outcome in this hypothetical though? So the US flips, Israel is pressured into withdrawing, Hamas regains control of the strip and resumes rocket attacks, Israel is forced to respond eventually. It doesn't seem like a path toward a real solution.
There isn't a real solution. Just an opportunity for a few years of peace where people can do the important things in life. That is no small thing though. The danger is in chasing some quixotic nationalist dream. That is never ever going to work out.
"Just an opportunity for a few years of peace where people can do more important things in life"
For many people that's amazing.
> Why would we expect any desirable outcome in this hypothetical though?
Ending unconditional US support is the only thing that motivates Israel to seek an end other than by genocide, which is a necessary (but not sufficient, on its own) condition for any desirable outcome.
> It doesn't seem like a path toward a real solution.
As long as the Dahiya doctrine persists, it won't be. But that's an Israeli problem - their disproportionate response has been exploited for years. Hamas is fine letting Israel commit as many war crimes as it takes to satisfy their leadership, it very clearly hasn't changed tactics in recent years. The cost to Israeli international credibility seems to be "worth it" in their eyes.
So, if Israel wants peace they first have to stop escalation. But even if Hamas was defeated, we know that wouldn't be the end of things. Next the Druze has to be defended, which would result in a very justified annexation of south Syria and repeat of the same genocidal conditions in Gaza. They would also attempt to unseat power in Yemen, and then embroil America in an unwinnable war against Iran to sustain a true hegemony.
America is pissing away its hegemony all on its own.
Israel needs to take a more precise approach to getting rid of Hamas.
What is more precise than identifying specific structures, warning the civilians around those structures to evacuate, and then destroying the structures with little damage to surrounding structures? Or how did you think those videos of buildings being destroyed came around? Precognition.
There have been entire neighborhoods booby trapped by Hamas. And you can find photos of those neighborhoods flattened.
People who think it's acceptable to bomb civilian residential areas flat because they're "booby trapped" are lost souls.
Those booby traps also kill Gazan children. Did you see that recent video of the Gazan girl getting blown to bits? They tried to pin it on Israel, but it was a Hamas IED. That's why there was a camera pointed at it.
sorry, is this an argument that no israeli explosions are caught on camera? that seems unlikely
[dead]
Gaza declared war on Israel. Americans as a whole are never going to condemn Israel for doing what is necessary to be reasonably certain that Gazans aren’t going to conduct a massacre at a rave again. Unfortunately, it appears that destroying Gaza is the only way to have confidence it won’t happen again.
You're a Jew.
the most precise thing is getting somebody else into power who removes hamas via police means rather than leveling buildings.
It can either end in the death of one side, most probably Palestinians, or in peace agreement.
Currently there is war, peace is out of the window. First step is to stop the war, second step is to make both side actually negotiate.
It was attempted by Clinton a while ago but assassinations from mossad and hamas prevented the process to success.
To be honest, politicians have failed us too many times for my sad brain to believe that there will be a good outcome.
Most probably Israel society will keep radicalizing itself, Palestinians will be killed and Gaza bombed/annexed leading to the death of both Palestinian and Israeli civilization. Palestinian will be all dead and Israeli will have become in all manner what they initially sought to destroy, literal nazi.
I’d even bet that death by zyklon is more human that seeing your family and yourself getting slowly hungered to death. And contrary to nazi Germany, no Israeli can pretend to not know what’s going on.
[flagged]
No, normal people understand very well that they are. They are the children of Palestinians who were murdered or ethnically-cleansed in the Nakba and then locked up in an open-air prison. They are the resistance to zionist-colonialism. You obviously can't describe them as such, since you are a Zionist for whom such primitive smears are useful propaganda designed to deny them the internationally recognized right to armed resistance.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I wouldn't mistake Palestinians for Hamas operatives, despite how much Hamas wants that.
Would the IDF?
To an extent sure but Israel 's methods of stopping them are the issue. They are using total war which causes suffering disproportionately to innocent people
The US seems to be dominated by different right wing meme factions now. A choice between different strains of Maga all of whom would kill thousands in Gaza just to spite the left.
[flagged]
a lot of the videos "coming out of Gaza" are propaganda/fake. I know that sounds like a "crazy conspiracy theory" but if one researches it one can see that "anti-Israel" narratives are being crafted by powerful forces.
https://honestreporting.com/behind-the-headlines-the-data-th...
https://www.newsweek.com/mainstream-media-biased-against-isr...
https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/journalist-matti-friedman-e...
https://icejusa.org/2025/05/22/anti-israel-media-bias-ratche...
"blame the 'evil' Jews" is one of Western Civilization's favorite "games" for some reason. "Their culture values education, frugality, they don't accept Jesus Christ as 'the Messiah', they must be evil!"
(I'm not Jewish, but many of my close friends are, and I've read a lot of history/religion/politics books)
https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/on-democraci...
https://www.audible.com/pd/On-Democracies-and-Death-Cults-Au...
https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/when-christi...
*edited typos and capitalization
Consider that the videos of Oct 7 had a similar effect on lots of decent people. The un is the same now as it was before October 7. In gueterres words "it didn't happen in a vacuum". The complete loss of credibility for the un also didn't happen in a vacuum. Even if their report is true it will fall on deaf ears thanks in no small part to their lack of any sort of objectivity when it comes to Israel.
This was me. I was browsing Hamas' Telegram account as they released the FPV videos that day. The two most disturbing scenes were the pantless body of a teenaged girl being burned amidst chanting of "Allahu Akbar", and militants scouring buildings for any person or pet they could kill and doing just that whenever they found someone.
I learned a very uncomfortable—though valuable—lesson about humans that day.
Israel stood down then opened fire on their own people.
October 7 made people in the US demand that their representatives stop supporting genocide? No, it didn’t. It made a lot of supposedly decent people support and even demand evil in their name. At that point you’re just defining “being a decent person” as “if nothing evil happens you won’t be evil” which doesn’t seem like a useful definition.
Agreed, UN doesn't have a great reputation in America, I'm skeptical many people will care about this outside the media news cycle
Pew says only 52% percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of UN in 2024 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/05/most-peop...
On a political or legal level for Israel it might have more implications though, that is impossible for them to ignore, but ICJ will focus on the leaders who can avoid visiting certain countries...just like Putin.
> Agreed, UN doesn't have a great reputation in America, I'm skeptical many people will care about this outside the media news cycle.
Lots of people will care, but it isn’t going to move a lot of opinions.
> Pew says only 52% percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of UN in 2024
Yes, but it says 57% do in 2025, the first positive change in support since 2022. [0]
But neither is that much more than the 50% that already think Israel is committing genocide [1], and the positions are probably significantly correlated, so this probably isn’t swaying many people that aren’t already convinced.
> On a political or legal level it might have more implications though but ICJ will focus on the leaders who can avoid visiting certain countries.
Always good to see assessments of international legal impacts from people who don’t know that the International Court of Justice deals exclusively with cases between states, and that the standing body that deals with individual offenses that are war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression is the International Criminal Court.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/05/united-na...
[1] https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3929
> Always good to see assessments of international legal impacts from people who don’t know that the International Court of Justice deals exclusively with cases between states, and that the standing body that deals with individual offenses that are war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression is the International Criminal Court.
So what is your expert opinion then? What is the risk to the state of Israel itself if ICJ makes a case against them?
Informing people > admonishing them
US sure likes israel...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saar-urges-250-...
250 us legislators had to fly there (probably paid by the taxpayers) a few days ago.
Sadly, looking at the US politics, whichever side you vote, israel wins.
Those are US state legislators. We have 7,386 of them. Sometimes a few wander outside during their election races.
You could easily fit that delegation into New Hampshire’s House of Representatives of 400 seats.
Meanwhile it’s more than double California’s total state legislature size of 120 seats.
It’s fun!
I agree. That’s why I won’t vote unless someone NOT funded by AIPAC is on the ballot.
Good news! You have made no impact on Israel.
> I won’t vote unless someone NOT funded by AIPAC is on the ballot
Then you're electorally irrelevant. Particularly if your only civic (in)action is not voting.
The only genocide where the war they started could end immediately they would just release the hostages.
Use some common sense!
But the Palestians and Hamas are distinct. There are even Christian Palestinians who are of course, since Hamas is so fundamentally Islamist, not at all represented by the group.
Palestinians who are not part of Hamas are third parties and when they are attacked, you can't tell them to ask Hamas to release hostages or do anything, because they have no more influence over Hamas than anybody else does.
Do Christian Palestinians live in the Gaza strip or somewhere else?
> Do Christian Palestinians live in the Gaza strip or somewhere else?
Would note that not all Muslim Palestinians support Hamas, and to the degree they say they do, I wouldn't morally equivocate their actions with those who actually commit the atrocities (or refuse to surrender hostages).
There are Christian Palestinians in Gaza. Remember the Catholic church in Gaza that was bombed by Israel resulting in a rare apology to the Vatican?
There is a Christian minority in the Gaza strip.
A dwindling minority. They emigrate to Israel If they can.
Christian population is going down in Palestine, and up in Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazan_Christians#Hamas
What you are describing is collective punishment.
It is a war crime.
[flagged]
This disconnect from reality is what makes the place so irredeemably doomed.
I live within walking distance of the Gaza strip and talk to people there several times per week via Telegram. People who live there, who grew up there. I talk to them in Arabic.
I'm hardly disconnected from what is happening in Gaza.
Israel systematically abducts, tortures, and imprisons Palestinians old and young with reckless abandon. I hate to defend Hamas, but the goal of the abductions was to use them as a bargaining chip to get their own captives who'd been unjustly imprisoned in hellish conditions, for years on end.
Settlers in the West Bank openly murder Palestinians like animals, as well. The State of Israel is a violent terrorist state.
While I agree that Israel do all these illegal things, abductions, murders, letting settlers do whatever and so on, I think on a deeper level the Hamas attack was an Iranian proxy attack and to them, bargaining chips and hostages are just details. They play a dirty game.
Ignoring the thousands of rockets launched from Gaza in the hours before, Hamas telegraphed the October 7 attacks for years. Specifically, planning the attack since at least the 2010's.
Occam's Razor indicates that it was a legitimate operation by Hamas and Israel underestimated their adversary.
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-october-7-attack-an-assessment...
https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/guard-down-d...
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/05/nx-s1-5318591/israel-shin-bet...
I do agree that Hamas has agency and its own agendas. I just doubt they would be as "successful" without Iranian support.
>I think on a deeper level the Hamas attack was an Iranian proxy attack and to them, bargaining chips and hostages are just details. They play a dirty game.
That is such a shallow understanding of someone for whom the whole region is just a source of entertainment. While Hamas is an "Iranian proxy" in a similar way that Ukraine is an "American proxy" that doesn't mean that Hamas and Ukraine aren't autonomous actors who, despite their reliance on outside help, have a righteous cause and will keep defending their lands with or without that help.
It's also ironic that you would describe it as "on a deeper level" when it's quite the opposite - it's shallow and misguided. Hamas is a Sunni militant group, while Iran is Shia. You clearly have no understanding whatsoever how these groups have historically fought each other - just look at how they have been fiercely fighting each other in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
So why would Iran help Hamas then? For Iran, attaching themselves to a righteous cause such as Palestine has been a very effective tool to whitewash Iran's image and present Iran as "Axis of Resistance" despite having caused much harm to the Sunni-Muslims in the region (e.g. Iran cooperated with America in destroying Iraq, Iran also helped Assad oppress the Syrians for decades). Thus, helping the Palestinian resistance gives the shady Iranian regime legitimacy and positive PR like no other cause in the world. (the average iranian may genuinely support Palestine, because they are mostly unaware of the meta-game being played by their own regime)
Why does Hamas accept help from Iran? This should be much easier to understand. Most of the Arab regimes are ruled by puppets who are subservient to America and have betrayed the resistance. One of the main reasons for October 7 was Saudi's MBS being close to normalizing with Israel and thus sealing Palestine's fate forever. This was a "now or never" moment so the resistance made clear that they mean business and that they won't let any normalization happen without a sovereign Palestinian state. Back to Iran - so when you're in a dire situation, you can't be picky with your allies. Iran helps Hamas because it's a great tool to whitewash its own Iranian image, and Hamas gets weapons in return. October 7 however was most certainly not in Iran's interest whatsoever. Despite Iran's harsh language towards America, they very much tried to cozy up and seek "forgiveness" because of the crushing sanctions. Iran may play dirty games like Israel does, but Hamas doesn't - for the resistance it's quite literally about survival and resisting zionist-colonialism.
[Some more examples. In 2012, relations between Iran and Hamas soured after Hamas refused to support Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally in the Syrian civil war. This led to Iran taking punitive measures against Hamas.
- As a financial punishment, Iran cut its funding to Hamas. This financial support had been estimated at around $23 million per month and the cut caused a significant financial crisis for Hamas in Gaza.
- Along with financial cuts, Iran also ceased military cooperation, which ended the supply of weapons to Hamas from Tehran.
- They began to rebuild their relationship around three years later, though tensions remained (see links below)
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/hamas-ditches-assad-ba...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/hamas-iran-reb...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palest... ]
[flagged]
The hostages have nothing to do with it... as much as Gazans have nothing to do with the Oct 7 massacre.
How would the hostage return the land? How would Gazan tell Hamas to stop?
Both answers are they can't
[flagged]
Many of the current hostages were in a music festival (it's not a war zone) and captured during the Oct 7 massacre by Palestine.
Edit: I see you edited your comment to blame the hostages for being in the music festival. So, you normalize blaming regular people who have nothing to do with the war; the very thing you said we shouldn't do.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
You mean like supporting Germany and Japan in 1944-1945? German and Japanese civilians were dying in the thousands. How could it be wrong to support imperial japan and nazi germany by opposing the allies?
Perhaps so if the death toll among civilians in Germany had been as high as the death toll in the Gaza Strip.
How about the allies in WWII? Were they on the wrong side of history?
When it comes to strategic bombing, honestly, yes.
It boggles my mind that militaries keep attempting despite decades of experience showing that damn near every single time it's been attempted, it's been an abject failure in its aims and very often entirely counterproductive.
How about when it comes to military actions that were not strategic bombing?
FWIW the reason that Israeli troops are on the ground and not just razing the Strip from the air is to reduce risk to civilians.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Antisemitism doesn't come from a lack of IQ, it comes from being a bad person
And support for genocide? Which one causes that?
Like any social media it's also a place for the lonely and paranoid. These were always attractive ideas for them. The difference is that today they come from the Left.
[flagged]
I wonder if Israel will try to bully members on the HR council like they've done in past years.
Israel seems like a very ineffective bully considering that the UN consistently condemns them the most vs. any other country in the world.
https://unwatch.org/un-condemns-israel-17-times-6-on-rest-of...
But for me, this says more about the nature of the UN than that of Israel.
[flagged]
At this point any Israel supporter can’t really afford to care about anybody’s opinion on human rights, so it doesn’t matter who is saying this. I’m sure the UN doesn’t expect their report to influence the people committing the genocide they are documenting: they hope to influence the rest of the world.
In what way has Israel bullied members on the HR council?
I couldn't find any info on intimidation of HR council members. Nevertheless there were reports of the Israeli Mossad chief intimidating the ICC chief prosecutor at the time Fatou Bensouda. [1]
Her successor Karim Khan has also reported threats were made. He was later implicated in a sex scandal [2]. It would not surprise me if this was a Mossad sting operation.
[1] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240528-israels-mossad-ch... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgeg738rvdeo
Edit: as the sibling comment states, the Americans have put in place sanctions against members of the HR council, along members of the ICC.
They use America to sanction the participants: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/09/us-sanctions... Just one example of many.
Inb4 whining that it's just the American government being slavishly loyal to the Zionist cause and the Zionist government of Israel has nothing at all to do with this. I swear to god if I get any response like this I will literally go blind from my eyeballs doing full 360s in my skull.
The US will bully them on Israel's behalf.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/trump-administrat...
[flagged]
The right's split thinking on this issue is largely a split down generational lines. The balance of the split is shifting as old people die. The Zionist faction of the left is almost dead already, and on the right it will still take some more years, but once that's done, America's support for Israel will have expired.
I think Israel realizes they're on borrowed time, and that's why they've adopted such an overtly aggressive strategy of getting what they want now, making their strategic goals a fait accompli while still receiving protection from America. With America out of the picture, Israel goes the way of Rhodesia.
The support for Israel was always higher for older people, and that goes back all the way to the 70's as far as I could tell. Something about being young and impressible, captured by the Palestinian ethos, until people grow up.
When you say "Going by the way of Rhodesia" do you mean Israelis will just scatter away, the remaining ones will be under constant threat of violence?
No, it's because American boomers are crazy Christians who think that they must ensure that Israel continues to exist, no matter how much evil it perpetrates, because apparently their schizo book says the existence of Israel is a prerequisite for the resurrection of their Messiah who will then usher in the Apocalypse. Old people in America don't support Israel because they're smarter or more mature, it's because they're insane retards. Young people are abandoning these American churches, and largely religion in general. They haven't been brainwashed into supporting Israel like the boomers were.
BTW, Israel going the way of Rhodesia is unavoidable. Depending on how things go, it might happen in a few years, or twenty years, but as surely as baby boomers all eventually die, so too will Israel die.
[dead]
Antisemitism is back, with its nasty conspiracy theories, jews as baby killers, controlling the world, involved in any news item.
Good thing Zionism was invented exactly to counter that.
Everyone here is talking about Israel, even the person with the wild comment about Epstein and Kirk.
It is common for a minority of people to say similarly wild things about the US, Russia, China, and so on.
Almost certainly
Useless except if the following done on the US side:
Remove exception to AIPAC political status
Reevaluate AIPAC non profit status entirely
Replicate EO 14046 for Israel which adds the entire ruling party and head of state and spouses and military and affiliated business to the OFAC list
all of this is easy and doesn’t require Congress
but nobody is close to considering those actions with regard to Israel. Notably, other nation’s organizations do not enjoy this courtesy
(Don’t sorry guys, Hamas is already on these lists too)
Voters can take a stand and refuse to vote for anyone complicit in this atrocity.
In the US, both parties were supportive in the last election. Not many choices.
> both parties were supportive in the last election. Not many choices.
Primaries.
The truth is that foreign policy rarely flips American elections. Particularly when we don't have our troops on the ground.
One party had a long leash. The other cut the leash and yelled attaboy.
Now acting mildly concerned when the neighbour downstreet (Qatar) got their chickens bombed.
Why shouldn't Hamas leadership be bombed wherever they may be? They're the leaders of a terrorist organization. The US takes out terrorists wherever they may be (or, works with local authorities to get them first). But, when local authorities are siding with the terrorists, we go in there and do it ourselves. October 7th was Israel's 9/11 - we went and got bin Laden in Pakistan, without dealing with the Pakistani government. Why shouldn't Israel do the same thing? I say - kill all the Hamas leadership, and leave the random Palestinian citizens alone.
There was only one bin Laden, and we didn't use missiles for that one.
> Why shouldn't Hamas leadership be bombed wherever they may be?
Israel wouldn't be nearly as criticised if they're restricted themselves to surgical strikes on Hamas. Hell, they could have done exactly what they did until hostages started being exchanged, and then switched to surgical strikes, and I suspect--while folks would grumble--leaders would have better things to focus on.
We have bombed their leadership. This is an entirely different war. Hamas was/is the government of Gaza. They're part of the people there, not outside it.
You're trying to fight an organization that is part of the civilian population, not above it or outside of it. And that organization is deliberately using human shields to blur the lines even further.
It's not easy to figure out who's a random Palestinian or who's going to fire a rocket into Israel five years from now. If we want to keep bombing our way to victory, that's going to continue down the road of genocide.
Humanity needs to be better than this. We need to be better than this.
I can turn anyone, including you, into "someone who will fire a rocket in 5 years". Give me US backing and I can do it in 4
> Now acting mildly concerned when the neighbour downstreet (Qatar) got their chickens bombed.
Thing is, what was bombed there was Hamas leadership, not some rank-and-file goons.
Yes, and at this point I'm not arguing for or against that action. I'm saying the current and previous US administration have very different foreign policy.
I can write in “free Palestine”
And it's gonna get seen by one (1) vote counter who'll then put it away/throw it in the bin
As long as it doesn’t go to a genocide enabler I could care less where my vote goes
Oh I just don't vote instead, it just feels performative now
[flagged]
[flagged]
Wonder why this made the frontpage when other political articles die.
Has the rules around political non technical articles changed? Can we get an Epstein thread for the frontpage sometime this week?
No, the rules haven't changed—they've been the same for many years. Let me try to dig up some past explanations.
Edit: here's one from a few months ago, which covers the principles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43738815.
Re how we approach political topics on HN in general: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Re how we deal with Major Ongoing Topics, i.e. topics where there are a ton of articles and submissions over time: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Re how we approach turning off flags: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Re the perception that "HN has been getting more political lately" (spoiler: it hasn't - though it does fluctuate): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869.
If you or anyone will check out some of those links and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Looking at the official HN guidelines, it states that "Most stories about politics" is off-topic, and "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic".
Is the Isreal/Gaza debate not political, and not mainstream news? How does a story like this not directly violate those guidelines?
Furthermore, the guidelines state that stories should be what "good hackers" find "intellectually satisfying". A political debate thread about Isreal is what "good hackers" would find intellectually satisfying?
I just can not understand how a story such as this in any way remotely meets the established, official guidelines for what belongs here.
Considering these threads also, universally, just devolve in political flamewars / hate spreading. There's nothing constructive here. There's no debate. There's no opposing ideas/opinions allowed.
Yes, but as pg once put it, "note those words most and probably" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426). That was in 2012, btw, which shows how far back HN's approach to this goes.
That leaves open the question of which stories to treat as on topic, but the links in my GP comment go into detail about how we handle that. I'm not saying we always make the correct call about individual stories. There will never be general agreement about that, since every reader has a different set of things they care about. But I hope we can at least make the principles clear, as well as the fact that they haven't changed.
> There's nothing constructive here. There's no debate. There's no opposing ideas/opinions allowed.
That doesn't seem true to me. I'm seeing lots of opinions I don't agree with.
> A political debate thread about Isreal is what "good hackers" would find intellectually satisfying?
Personally, one aspect I always enjoyed about this site was how it was often an escape for me from the endless bombardments of political discourse that is constantly being shown/recommend to me on other platforms. I do understand the importance of the nature of these types of discussions, but I agree with you, I am not certain much honest debate is being had here.
In the n number of threads like this, I would be surprised if many leave with any of their opinions changed. All too often do people comment to soothe their own knee-jerk reactions rather than to facilitate understanding or intellectually challenge one another.
Conversely, some of us don't hang out on sites that are an endless bombardment of political discourse. That sounds awful. The HN approach seems uniquely useful. One or two post on an event, easily skipped over and ignored if you want with all the comments hidden behind clicking on that headline. Whole trees of comments trivially collapsed at will when they become uninteresting. It is actually a really great way of getting international news (including US news for me) and sampling opinions and commentary, even if it was not intended that way.
Israel and Israeli businesses are an intractable part of the modern American tech scene. Mellanox, for example, is the cited reason Nvidia ships any datacenter-scale interconnect at all today. America's highest-tech defense contractors work in direct concert with Rafael et. al, and companies like Cellebrite are suppliers of US law enforcement.
When the equation changes vis-a-vis Israel's credibility, this entire Jenga structure has to be reevaluated. It's not satisfying to think about, but it is intellectually prudent and remains important regardless of how civil the response ends up being.
> When the equation changes vis-a-vis Israel's credibility, this entire Jenga structure has to be reevaluated. It's not satisfying to think about, but it is intellectually prudent and remains important regardless of how civil the response ends up being.
If the topics and responses pertained to such a discussion, then that would be one thing. However, it seems like that is not what is being discussed in this topic nor comments section.
Just wanna say this is the kind of day where I feel like I should send you a fruit basket or something for the work you do here.
I think you are the only good moderator on the internet.
[flagged]
I've never discussed this topic with Garry and no one at YC has tried to influence how we moderate HN on this or any other political topic.
You might want to check out the part of the HN FAQ which explains that the moderators are editorially independent: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
I feel like parent probably meant Paul Graham. Garry holds polar opposite opinions (he blocked me on X because he had had made claims about what Intifada means, and as an Arabic speaker I felt compelled to point out the correct meaning).
In any case, I don't think Paul or Garry are interfering with the algorithm or moderation here.
What does the word Intifada actually mean? You have piqued my interest now.
Yep, I meant pg
[flagged]
For me, this is meaningful because for the first time a legitimate international body is calling this a genocide.
Previously, it’s been activists and claims that this might be genocide. I haven’t read the report yet. But I will, and I intend to leave my mind open as to whether this raises the profile of this war in my mind relative to domestic issues.
Go read this UNHCR report. All the evidence is just circular references to other bodies who reference each other. The most damning thing they could pin on Israel was that "Israel admits 83% of the casualties are civilians". That idea was because Israel could name 17% of the casualties in Hamas registers as members of the organization. But assuming that every other casualty is a civilian is quite a stretch. For one thing, Israel doesn't know the name of every militant it kills while he's aiming an RPG at them. For another, there are many other militant organizations in the strip, notably the Islamic Jihad. For a third, typically 75% - 90% of the casualties of war are civilians by the UN's own numbers.
Pages 51-54 contain a list of on-the-record quotes from the government itself. Those, at least, are not in contention.
Francesca Albanese has held the genocide line since day one as the UN special rapporteur on israel and palestine
She's hardly impartial. Her husband worked for the Palestinian Authority.
Ooh, can we dismiss all statements from someone who is related to someone who worked for the Israeli government or was in the IDF too?
Wait, you know people who were killed by Hamas? You can’t even pretend to be impartial.
> can we dismiss all statements from someone who is related to someone who worked for the Israeli government or was in the IDF too?
The point is that, as someone with limited stakes in this war and limited exposure to its history until recently, unbiased sources have been hard to come by. The entire definition of genocide has been politicised. That isn't a criticism of anyone doing it--language is a powerful tool, and it's fair game to try and bend definitions to one's advantage. But all that makes piercing the veil on whether this is the horribleness of war being selectively cited, or a selectively horrible war, tough.
This report cuts through that. The evidence is compelling, albeit less primary than I'd have hoped. The writing is clear and impartial. (Though again, a lot of secondary sourcing.) It doesn't seek to answer who is at fault for what is, essentially, an intractable multigenerational conflict (even before we involve proxies). It just seeks to simply answer a question, and in my opinion, having now skimmed (but not deeply contemplated) it, it does.
The balance of evidence suggests Israel is prosecuting a genocide against the people of Palestine. That creates legitimacy for escalating a regional conflict (one among money, I may add, and nowhere close to the deadliest) into an international peacekeeping operation.
Unfortunately, all of this rests on a system of international law that basically all the great powers of this generation (China, then Russia, and now America and India) have undermined.
I also know people who have had family members killed by the IDF, if you question my credibility.
You can certainly state that I'm not impartial (am I partial?) because "my side was already chosen". But in fact, I'm in constant contact with Gazans (in Gaza, in Arabic) and constantly reevaluating my stance.
I hate this war, but I do not see any option other than Israel continuing to pressure Hamas. Especially as the European nations actually embolden Hamas. And even with the pressure, I do not see how this conflict is a genocide. If, and ths report states, that Israel is performing 4 of the 5 definitions of genocide, then the interpretation used of those definitions applies to dozens of far worse conflicts. Including the actions of Hamas on October 7th.
I'm uninsterested in your credibility or opinion on wether or not it's a genocide.
Courts have ruled it is. The world has ruled it is. You can skirm all you want, in 6 months you'll say you always thought it was a genocide. Mark my words.
Wether she is or not is not for me to decide - at any rate, her analysis seems to have been absolutely spot on if we are now recognizing it is a genocide, isn't it?
And if you think the UN rapporteur is too biased to do their job correctly, why do you care what the UN does?
No, because her report is part of the "evidence" against Israel. Your argument is circular.
[flagged]
> her analysis seems to have been absolutely spot on if we are now recognizing it is a genocide, isn't it?
No, no more than someone who predicts a market crash every day is proven right the one time they nail it. The quality and objectivity of the analysis matters. Not just the conclusion.
She didn't predict anything, she analysed evidence and arrived to the same conclusion as the ruling you qre recognizing today.
Odd you can't reconcile that both parties can be correct
A market crash is a one-time event. A genocide is ongoing. This would be like someone claiming since 2003 there was a pedo ring in the upper echelons of society and everyone calling them a liar until...
maybe because we are two years into an event that will define the early 21st century.
C'mon man, the Charlie Kirk post stayed on the front-page for a pretty long time.
With the amount of moderation that post seemed to be taking, I fully expected it to be killed quickly. Was pretty surprised it stayed up.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
There's a bit of an IQ test with this stuff. Obviously Israel and Hamas will both say whatever is most advantageous to them - of course one side will claim genocide and one will deny it, neither is meaningful.
A friend was telling me that Gaza has been starving for for 2 years so we looked back on the headlines and they said "brink of starvation" - so like - being on the brink for 2 years means you weren't on the brink?
Lastly Israel is clearly less restrained now than I've ever seen it. But like they were accused of genocide forever. So those accusations were false but now it's really happening? But if they had been restrained all along then they are the moral party?
I am not trying to persuade for a side it's just funny how so many posters here are like "ohhh we have the real and moral information here" when it's obvious that's not even available.
You can be kept on the brink of starvation just like you can keep a cup hanging over the edge of a table. It's a manufactured famine, therefore it can be created with precision. Unlike the potato famine in Ireland, it's controlled and they literally count calories going in (before cutting it to 0).
If your analysis is entirely headline based I can see why you might be confused. There are several levels of starvation, and Israel has progressively put Gaza through each. Complaining at each step is absolutely valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_scales
Given all the hatred that is going around, I believe the genocide is real. And if it's not real yet, it will be if someone doesn't put a stop to this.
But all the reporting does not add up.
Half the pictures Hamas shows of starving children aren't legitimate. They're children with medical conditions, not in Gaza, or from a different conflict.
The number of people starving to death each day are in the single or low double digits. If what was said was really true, there would be tens of thousands of people dead by now.
And I don't believe a single thing Israel says either. How many tunnels were actually found under hospitals? Definitely at least one. Definitely not all of them.
A little truth makes all the lies more believable.
[dead]
I"m going through the PDF now and I am appalled.
All the evidence cited is either circular in nature, referencing other agencies and bodies which cite each other, all reinforcing an extremely one-sided ratcheting look at the conflict. Ambiguous statements made by Israeli officials are consistently interpreted in the manner most damning to Israel, and statements of clear genocide made by those who attack Israel are ignored or excused. They cite clearly flawed logic such as the commonly debunked "Israel admits to 83% civilian deaths".
Interestingly enough, I tried to find other cases in which the UN Human Rights Council concluded that a genocide had occurred or was occurring. I found none. Not the Rwanda genocide, not the Ughers, nor Tamil, nor Rohingya, nor Nigeria, nor Chechnya, nor the Congo, nor Darfur, not in Sudan, not ISIS, nor Yemen nor Ethiopia.
Only Israel.
You're a Jew.
While you do have points that these UN bodies do seem to sleep more often than not, one should never, under any circumstance attempt to suggest that what's happening in Gaza aren't crimes against humanity.
A friend of mine is in the Red Cross staff, they had more than 20 casualties since 2021 in Palestine. Their staff was literally shot at because they were doctors.
It's sickening.
"never under any circumstances attempt to suggest" anything contrary to what you believe is an unreasonable and weak proposition to an argument.
You are welcome to believe what you want to believe but plenty of people throughout History believed something as strongly and self righteously as you do and turned out dead wrong. To think you are immune to that and suggest that no voice to the contrary should be allowed is ridiculous.
> under any circumstance attempt to suggest that what's happening in Gaza aren't crimes against humanity
I mean I don't think anyone will argue it's good but "crimes against humanity" is certainly a massive exaggeration.
Which side do you think has an interest in shooting doctors?
I'll help you with that. It's not the side that would regularly take Gazan children into Israel for medical treatment before the Gazans started a war against Israeli children. Or do Israeli children mean nothing? Because I personally know two women whose children were burned to death on October 7th.
> Which side do you think has an interest in shooting doctors?
The one shooting doctors.
What happened on October 7 has been a tragedy. 38 children died that day, and you know two of the mothers. I can't even relate with their suffering, in no way I can understand their pain like you do.
But I don't know either any mothers of the 32'000 killed and wounded on the other side.
"One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this."
We should not call a genocide a genocide because you personally have been impacted by the latest trigger of a long conflict?
I can never understand your pain but for me this reads like bloodlust coming from revenge. That is a path that will never lead to an end of bloodshed.
Given the actions of the Netanyahu government continuously siding with actions prolonging the genocide despite whatever action Hamas takes what do you propose?
What do you think of the colonialists/settlers/occupiers on the West Bank stealing Palestinian land and forcing people from their homes?
[flagged]
[flagged]
> One of the first Hamas Gopro videos of October 7th was the shooting of an ambulance
Nobody's ever denied that October 7th was a tragedy and that similar things happened. Not even once.
Don't get your point besides "if some of us suffered, it's fine to inflict 1000x the suffering on anybody associated, related or even just in proximity of those who caused us the suffering".
> It's not reckoning
I've never seen a war in which only one side has an army, and the other one loses almost exclusively civilians.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'd have to check, but I think Israel has killed more children in the past two years than Hamas killed Israelis on October 7. Israel has killed something like 30-40x the number of civilians in the same timeframe.
Hamas is a bunch of evil people. That doesn't justify descending to their level of butchery to exterminate them, especially not when you are so much more efficient at that butchery.
You don't have to check, more Gazan children have died than Israeli children. So by your argument, had Hamas killed more Israeli children then there wouldn't be a problem? I can think of no other reason why you made that argument.
You might notice that Hamas was in Israel for less than 1/40 the time that this war has been going on. So per time period, Hamas killed _more_ children than Israel, given the chance. Who do you accuse of genocide now? They've just been denied the chance.> Who do you accuse of genocide now?
The one doing it
> They've just been denied the chance.
Perhaps. Perhaps if they somehow had the time, means and power to do it, they would have killed as many people on the other side, although this is high speculative as the past decades would have played out very differently anyway.
I'm not sure where you're going with that though. Nobody claims Hamas are kind and gently guys.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Title: Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza
Reality: The report was written by a 3 person UNHRC commission, which itself is seated by Ethiopia, Congo, Sudan, and Qatar.
I'm sorry but Qatar is part of neutral commission? Israel just bombed them. It was a bad for Israel to do, but this isn't "third-party."
And Sudan is having a home grown genocide right now...
[flagged]
Hopefully we are at the beginning of a change, but I doubt this will come only from the UN.
The UN is the only international democratic institution that - even with its many imperfections - prevents the world to fall into complete anarchy. It's quite telling that it gets ignored since so many years by the country that elevates itself as the world defender of democracy, the US.
The UN has voted for decades for ending the embargo towards Cuba. Every year the outcome of the vote, which has always resulted in a great majority demanding the immediate end of the embargo, has been ignored by the US, resulting in millions of Cubans facing extreme economic consequences since many decades. The last time every country except Israel and US voted for ending the embargo (I might be wrong, maybe a single African state abstained).
In all of this, the only seed of joy I see, was seeing the Cubans a couple of years ago, after decades and decades of seeing their economy strangled by the most powerful country on Earth, roll out their own Covid vaccine just at the same time of those of big Pharma - a vaccine that resulted excellent, effective, and cheap. Hats off for the Cubans. Hope to see some other seed like this also in the Palestinians.
> The UN is the only international democratic institution that - even with its many imperfections - prevents the world to fall into complete anarchy. It's quite telling that it gets ignored since so many years by the country that elevates itself as the world defender of democracy, the US.
It's not been ignored the purpose of the UN is for largely irrelevant countries to petition the world powers to maybe consider doing something. The UN has been so successful because it has no real power over players like the USA.
> The UN has voted for decades for ending the embargo towards Cuba.
Ok? I mean the purpose of the UN is for people to suggest stuff to players like the USA not for the USA to actually do what the UN votes for.
It's weird to claim that one country should be forced to trade with another country. International trade is voluntary on both sides. The US isn't responsible for keeping any other country's economy healthy. It's simply not our problem, and Cuban economic problems are a consequence of their own corruption and dogmatic incompetence. Should the US also be forced to trade with, let's say, North Korea?
The UN serves as a valuable diplomatic forum but let's not pretend that is does have or should have any real power or authority.
What people fail to understand about dynamics between countries, is ultimately there is no supreme court or arbiter of truth. The UN doesn't have authority over any powerful country (or non powerful country for that matter).
People seem to have this concept that there is some supra national legal system, or even moral system that can hold a higher truth than what powerful countries want, but there isn't. When it comes to geopolitics, the biggest and most powerful sets the rules and lives by them (or not). The USA has zero motivation to do something the UN wants it to do, if it doesn't itself want to do it. No one is going to hold it to account.
Ultimately - whoever controls the violence can set the rules. For the last 80 years that's been the US. Maybe that is changing, but not quite yet.
The UN isn't an international democratic institution. For the last 20-30 years it's been a powerless theatre. And it didn't have much power before then either. Because ultimately, whoever has the most nukes and the biggest army rules the world.
One hopeful observation is that I actually have seen coverage of the genocide in a local newspaper this time. N=1 of course (and I'm not sure what other local newspapers have been like), but that's more than before.
Can someone help explain, if Israel was attacked by Hamas back in October, what is considered a proper response to that? Not responding is wrong. Committing genocide is wrong too. Genuinely curious.
I don’t believe questions like that are asked in good faith. Maybe you are the exception, but I have seen too many people begin with exactly this question, and then end up justifying the Gaza genocide.
In case you are asking in good faith—and following the HN guidelines—I suggest you abandon this question and consider that maybe this is the wrong question to ask given the situation. If that is hard, then I ask you to consider that indigenous resistance against settler colonial violence has been a pretext for countless colonial oppression in the past, including many genocides.
Calling someone directly out/impugning their motives instead of responding is actually a violation of the HN guidelines. You can respond to topics, not posters. You are the one in violation.
This isn't the first time I've seem this 'you aren't in good faith' response on this topic, and is partly why again, HN just isn't a place where a real discussion can be had on this subject.
I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to relieve domestic pressure to engage in substantive actions (sanctions, pressuring the US and other suppliers of arms to engage in sanctions, let alone sending peacekeepers or no-fly zones).
Regardless of how much you're personally invested in the topic, this should break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable. Indeed, the US would rather sanction individuals at the ICJ than acknowledge any sort of legitimacy—even as our own politicians accuse Russia of engaging in "war crimes". I have no doubt that they are, in fact, I think that the evidence is quite damning. But the double standard is striking, as is the difference between the footage visible on social media and what is acknowledged when you turn on the TV or open the paper.
> break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable.
this is never going to happen. there is just no practical enforcement mechanism. laws and police works within a sovereign country because the state has the monopoly on violence, this is not true on the international stage. no country will go into war to enforce an ICC/ICJ conviction.
> I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to relieve domestic pressure to engage in substantive actions (sanctions, pressuring the US and other suppliers of arms to engage in sanctions, let alone sending peacekeepers or no-fly zones).
I don't think recognition as a State would really change anything. If at least one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council will veto everything that comes up, the UN won't effectively intervene in the situation. Military intervention in such a case is unlikely, unless at least one permanent member is willing to join an intervention coalition. Looking at conflicts the US has been involved in, it usually lines up around the lines with US maybe with their usual friends vs Locals or Locals and Russia and friends. The only one I found where the pattern was when France started sending arms to Nicaragua while the US was supporting the other side [1]. Unless Russia or China wants to support the Palestinians militarily, or the US decides not to no longer support Israel militarily, there's not much chance of outside intervention here.
Given the outside countries can't effectively intervene, recognizing the state of Palestine at least sends a message, that maybe hopefully influences the US?
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0715/071566.html
There's not really much of a state to recognize in the first place, is there? Maybe this would have made a big difference 30 years ago, but now?
The international community is a worthwhile endeavour. But all other countries play at the behest of the US and now, also China.
Between them, the rest have only local influence.
> Preventing births within the group: The attack on Gaza’s largest fertility clinic destroyed thousands of embryos, sperm samples, and eggs. Experts told the commission this would prevent thousands of Palestinian children from ever being born.
To be honest, I think this report is reaching.
Also it should be noted that Israel did supply Gaza with necessities before the war. To stop these supplies is something different than restricting access. All that doesn't fit with the meaning of the term genocide, no legal investigation changes that. Of course you should be able to put it in front of a judge, but I don't see it how it can be sensibly argued aside as a tool to put some pressure on Israel.
They have repeatedly hampered the entry of baby formula, a clear pattern of actions to stunt childhood development, increase childhood mortality and dissuade the population from having more children.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-hampering-entry-of...
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/07/01/i...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/22/gaza-i...
Why can't it come in through Egypt?
Because Israel controls that border crossing:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/7/israel-takes-control...
Even before this they had effective control of all goods moving through since 2007.
Consistent with the precedent set by the USA. Of course, they didn’t just hamper, they blew up the factory itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factor...
[flagged]
Gaza is dependent on Israel's permission. Food aid is provided by the UN and other humanitarian organisations, they require Israel's permission to bring that aid into Gaza and not attack it (n.b. attempts since 2010 to deliver aid by boat, such as the MV Rachel Corrie, have been attacked in international waters and the aid never reached Gaza). Israel destroyed the power and water desalination plants, making Gaza dependent on their supply, which has since been used as a weapon.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/thirst-weapo... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1w0l3q4zd0o
Why can't Gaza supply itself? There is farmland in Gaza. The Mediterranean sea is right there - plenty of fish.
Other folks are free to Google the answers to these questions.
If they haven't yet, what will get them to look?
Since '93, the range allowed for Palestinian fishing boats has been reduced from 20 to 3 nautical miles by Israeli naval vessels. Because primarily only young fish are found that close to the shore, and because constant damage to infrastructure means untreated wastewater is being dumped close by, it's a pretty bleak picture.
I suspect you haven't heard that Gaza is under a blockade for decades?
Why's it under blockade?
> The attack on Gaza’s largest fertility clinic destroyed thousands of embryos, sperm samples, and eggs.
More info on that particular attack: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15npnzpd08o
According to the article, nobody actually knows when the attack took place. And the BBC is assuming that it was an Israel attack, even though 1/3 to 1/6 of Hamas rockets fall back into Gaza - that is disingenuous. Furthermore, the single photograph of the clinic shows absolutely zero kinetic damage. How does an Israeli shell or bomb leave no kinetic damage? The Hamas rockets leave little to no kinetic damage as they are fuel-air bombs, not HE.
You're a Jew.
[flagged]
You can read up about the members of the Pillay commission, the "Top UN legal investigators", yourself. It is just ridiculous. Reminder that thousands of rockets rained on Israel on October 7th.
Crying genocide after such an attack when your enemy retaliates and retaliates very harshly in the context of middle eastern politics will never be reasonable. Hamas is free to surrender and everything would stop tomorrow.
I quoted from the report, you can make up your mind yourself. But you already did anyway.
Pillay is from the Apartheid crew, that just ignores a side of this conflict. A side that is very much not tolerant of everyone else. Bad and unconvincing report.
Reminder that Israel razed hundreds of Palestinian villages to the ground in 1948, and expelled half the Palestinian population from their homeland. Israel has always wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestine of the indigenous population. It has resisted any diplomatic route to a two-state solution, going as far as financing Hamas because Fatah was moving towards a peaceful resolution, and Hamas was seen as an adversary against whom ethnic cleansing would be easier to justify.
Israel is quite literally built on top of the ruins of Palestinian villages. The zionist project has always required an ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, because the project's goal is to build an ethnostate. This is just culminating in the current genocide.
> Israel is quite literally built on top of the ruins of Palestinian villages
The entire region was historically Jewish. As a simple example, consider the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. It is literally built on the ruins of a Jewish temple from BC times. That is long before any Arabs lived in the area, and long before Islam was invented.
There’s also no such thing as a “Palestinian village” because there is no such identity as Palestinian in truth. There’s just Islamic Arabs who tried to take over this land and claim it is their homeland when their homeland is really elsewhere.
> It has resisted any diplomatic route to a two-state solution
There were at least 5 different offers for a two-state solution historically. The people calling themselves “Palestinian” rejected every one of those. The real reason that can be deduced from this, is that they just don’t want a Jewish state to exist anywhere in any capacity.
Yeah, almost as many people as Jews were driven out of surrounding countries. I don't think headcounts do serve any sensible argument.
There is a lot of fiction in your post and I am not surprised that you have a problem with the existence of Israel.
You do realize Israel committed terrorist attacks against Arab Jews to make them flee their countries, right?
[flagged]
The problem is the only alternative solution the pro palestinian crowd is suggesting is basically that israel should lie down and die. None of the two faced arab leaders or virtue signalling europeans or hamas supporting UN are making any effort to evacuate gaza. On the absurd pretext that to allow any palestinians to leave gaza would be "ethnic cleansing"!
It's a scandal. They are the only ethnicity in the world which is implictly denied to take refuge (unless you are senior hamas). It's one of the most dehumanising things ever. "stay here and become a casualty statistic because that is the most convenient way to fulfill our political agenda."
If you don't want a Genocide then do literally anything at all to help actual palestinians and not just the terrorists (by which i include hamas and the plo) who represent them. UNWRA doesn't count since it's sole objective is to make sure that palestinians will always be refugees and needing aid, which is maybe even more dehumanising. Also don't deal with israel consistently in bad faith and then expect them and their supporters to care about what you think.
Just for the record i think this report is a fabrication and for those that say plenty of Israelis oppose what's going on in gaza i will respond that none of them can suggest any better alternative. No one is happy with the war but it's not as though israel is being given a choice. I'm not hearing any voices suggesting an international un coalition take over Gaza because it's a poisoned chalice and everyone would rather criticise then help.
Conclusion:
" 251. The Commission’s analysis in this report relates solely to the determination of genocide under the Genocide Convention as it relates to the responsibility of the State of Israel both for the failure to prevent genocide, for committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023 and for the failure to punish genocide. The Commission also notes that, while its analysis is limited to the Palestinians specifically in Gaza during the period since 7 October 2023, it nevertheless raises the serious concern that the specific intent to destroy the Palestinians as a whole has extended to the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, that is, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on Israeli authorities’ and Israeli security forces’ actions therein, and to the period before 7 October 2023. The events in Gaza since 7 October 2023 have not occurred in isolation, as the Commission has noted. They were preceded by decades of unlawful occupation and repression under an ideology requiring the removal of the Palestinian population from their lands and its replacement.
252. The Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit the following actus reus of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, namely (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
253. On incitement to genocide, the Commission concludes that Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, have incited the commission of genocide and that Israeli authorities have failed to take action against them to punish this incitement. The Commission has not fully assessed statements by other Israeli political and military leaders, including Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister for Finance Bezalel Smotrich, and considers that they too should be assessed to determine whether they constitute incitement to commit genocide.
254. On the mens rea of genocide, the Commission concludes that statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent. In addition, the Commission concludes that the pattern of conduct is circumstantial evidence of genocidal intent and that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the totality of the evidence. Thus, the Commission concludes that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have had and continue to have the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
255. The Commission concludes that the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."
[flagged]
That's why the mens rea element is also an element of the crime. You've completely skipped over that part of the report and the conclusion.
Which is completely based on trying to analyze the reactions of politicians to an attack that included mass killings of civilians, intense brutality and mass rape. surprise surprise these are filled with anger and do not read like a swedish minister reaction to migrant birds. These are not different than the USA post 9/11.
Even if you take these statements, and add everything that happened on the ground for the last two years, comparing it to the Armenian, Rawandian or Jewish genocides is a joke of epic proportions. It's a very minor war even in Middle Eastern terms, compared to the recent Syrian or Yemen civil wars or the American involvement in Iraq
> And let's find a war where clauses I, II, and III do not apply
When these clauses apply against civilian populations, they are war crimes or crimes against Humanity, or both.
Can you name a war in which members of a group weren't killed, or serious bodily or mental harm wasn't caused to a members of a group?
[flagged]
I don't see the corollary here.
@dang isn’t this the exact kind of story HN isn’t supposed to have?
See here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45267159
Why is this posted on a tech news site?
From the guidelines:
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics... unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I wonder the same. It’s odd to see it still here given the low quality of the discussion. And it is flooded by mischaracterizations, misinformation, and one-sided hyperbolic takes. I wonder what the right space or format is to have debates like this but in an effective way, rather than sides trying to win.
However dismayed you are by the low quality of the discussion, I promise you it bothers us even more. It's awful.
Not only that but whenever a thread like this appears, tomhow and I end up spending all day on it, which is by far the worst part of the job. I don't mean to complain—that would be grotesque, given the suffering that's going on—but just to say that it would be much easier if HN did not discuss this or similar topics at all.
But I don't think that's an option. It wouldn't be consistent with the values or the mandate of this site as I understand them, and it's our duty to try to be as true to those as we can. I want to be able to look back and say we did our best at that, even though the outcomes are so bad.
I tried to explain this in a recent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44403787, though I don't know how successfully.
The upshot of this is that there's no good option and no way out. Maybe experiencing that is the best we can do to honor what's happening. It feels somehow congruent with the reality of the situation being discussed, albeit in the trivial form that everything on an internet forum takes.
Because Israel is a part of the tech news cycle.
[flagged]
I don't understand this complaint. Are you the editor of this site?
This is not tech related and does not belong on hacker news
This is politics and therefore probably off-topic for hn. It not being tech-related is irrelevant.
An argument could be made that it is an "interesting new phenomenon", but the post is most likely to result in tedious flamewars regardless and so should probably be killed.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
> 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.
I find it interesting and worth talking about.
I generally find HN discussions pretty interesting, but this particular topic seems to just be two groups who have zero chance of changing their minds hurling misinformation and propaganda at each other.
Looks like the Zionist flagger bots are in full force here, you are all pathetic
[flagged]
I would agree with you if we were in 1994 and this was about Rwanda.
Those tower blocks in Gaza that were felled on the anniversary of 9/11 were not taken down with machetes. We have got AI assisted targeting going on, with all of your favourite cloud service providers delivering value to their shareholders thanks to sales to the IDF.
The corporation that once had 'don't be evil' as their mission statement are suckling on the IDF teat along with Amazon, IBM, Microsoft and Cisco.
Israel: Surrender or we'll destroy your city Hamas: Only if you let us rebuild and prepare the next war Israel: Starts destroying the city by bombing emptied buildings, these having received warning from Israel beforehand UN: Oh look, a genocide
Sure it does, if enough users find this interesting to them. I for one find this interesting.
This is a genocide.
A tech-enabled one.
[flagged]
Edit: since you've posted egregiously like this before and have ignored our requests to stop, I've banned the account.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44738555 (July 2025)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44362828 (June 2025)
Bottom-of-the-barrel antisemitism ought to be the easiest thing in the world to avoid, regardless of your views or feelings about the ongoing situation. In any case, there's no place for it on Hacker News—never has been and never will.
---- original comment: ----
rimunroe is correct, you've repeated a classic antisemitic trope. We ban accounts that post like that, so please don't post like that again.
It's entirely possible, and ought to be entirely easy, to make any substantive point you have without any of that.
What Israel is doing is reprehensible, but you're promoting a classic antisemetic myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Intentionally killing children will never be justified, everything else serves as a decoy from acknowledging this simple fact.
Israel does not intentionally kill children. Hamas does. They state it clearly.
Quite a few thousand killed by Israel, or are you claiming that's not true?
I wouldn’t call those intentional. Collateral damage in a defensive war against terrorists who are hiding among civilians is different from intentionally seeking to kill children as your only objective.
I agree that thousands of children have been killed in Gaza - by both Israel and Hamas. Trying to pin all of them on Israel only encourages Hamas to kill more.
Even if Israel is definitively shown to be genocidal, what the hell do you do with that? Because the result of that determination is that you now have a conflict where both sides are genocidal against the other. How do you pick a side in that scenario without implicitly supporting genocide? Do you try to determine whether Palestinian lives are worth more or less than Israeli/Jewish lives, using your own arithmetic? Try to argue that some forms of genocide aren't really genocide when you "really think about it"?
I think it's an impossible problem from an ethics perspective.
Quite the opposite actually.
You're free to Google the countless cases of Israel deliberately killing children, but I doubt you wanna get out of your echo chamber.
My echo chamber? I read the Gazan and other Arab telegram channels in Arabic. I write back and forth with people in Gaza (Gazans, who live there) every few days. You levy at me unfounded accusations.
Nobody in israel's army is aiming at children except maybe for some people turning crazy because of the war, which happens in every war.
Pretending otherwise is just blatant propaganda.
you were downvoted because people don't have any argument against your point : jews couldn't stop the holocaust by just surrendering, like hamas does.
The two situations have absolutely nothing in common.
So as long as there is one Hamas left standing, everyone around must die. This is what you mean?
Edit: can the non-Hamas surrender and avoid getting killed? They can't and the situations on the ground aren't that different. A Warzaw and Gazan survivor would have a lot in common.
So as long as there is one Hamas left standing, he could return the hostages and end the war.
So, you don't disagree. That's pretty telling.
Nor do you. Why can’t Hamas surrender and turn over hostages? Why should Israel put up with a continued threat against its residents of any magnitude?
Can the non-Hamas surrender and live? No, they can just stay and die. Tell me, what should a non-Hamas member in Gaza do right now to avoid getting bombed?
Edit: I found your answer to that question:
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=45268680&goto=threads%...
Paraphrased, the children are part of the culture and may die. There are no civilians.
But you are correct - the responsibility to end the war and prevent further civilian casualties lies squarely with Hamas. Pressure them to return the hostages, don't pressure Israel to capitulate to terrorists.
Except in practice, IDF bombs "safe" areas too. There's no out.
But it seems you are getting your way, we will find out exactly how many dead are acceptable to mr Bibi.
That's if the Israeli army won't kill the captives after they're freed.
[flagged]
That sounds like you're flirting with holocaust denial. We ban that sort of account, so no more of this please.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Not so much "lies" as "a people having a genocide committed against them does not make them constitutionally incapable of ever committing one themselves in the future." For several reasons, including that it was different people (only 7% of Holocaust survivors are still alive) and that 'nation,' as a conceptual construct, still carries the same weaknesses that it did when a relatively few voices in Germany used that construct to rally the masses to commit atrocities against their own citizens (and the people in their temporarily-conquered territory) for being 'the wrong kind' of people.
"It's not wrong when we're doing it" is an old, old failing of human empathy and sense of justice.
In fact, I think trauma often makes the victims more likely to perpetuate violence.
[flagged]
zionists still trying to deceive people with misleading analogies while pretending that their apartheid ethno-state can just start its origin story at october 7th [1]. I wonder what kind of individual still buys into these false and lazy zionist narratives.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231029055310/ojp.gov/ncjrs/vir...
[flagged]
Cited from the full report:
255. The Commission concludes that the State of Israel bears responsibility for the failure to prevent genocide, the commission of genocide and the failure to punish genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The reality is that it would take a court to find guilt and it's not their place to conclude guilt on someone not even subject to their accusation.
It literally says they bear responsibility for the commission of genocide. Did you fail to... read the one sentence you were responding to?
You forgot to read the "commission of genocide" part.
I see that the person we replied to edited their comment. It originally said something along the lines of "that just says they failed to prevent genocide."
[flagged]
Using future population estimates that assume no conflict as a source for an "increasing population" is very sloppy genocide denialism.
> During the 1994 Rwandan genocide
During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Israel continued their decades long support of the Hutu government, and "Israel continued sending weapons — including guns, ammunition, and grenades — to the Hutus as the genocide was taking place." https://www.972mag.com/rwanda-genocide-hutu-israel/
> AI responses may include mistakes.
Oh I see, I'm arguing with an Israeli genocide denialism bot. Great.
I literally wrote "AI summary" at the top because I copy and pasted it from google. If there was a genocide there would be many more palestinians dead, full stop. There would not be evacuation zones, humanitarian corridors, leaflets, announced bombings, etc. It would be trivial to simply kill everyone in Gaza, it is very obviously within their power.
Israel is fully dependent on the support it receives from western governments, and it knows that support will vanish if it wages a loud open genocide and brags about it. So no, it's not trivially in their power to kill everyone in Gaza, as Israel would cease to exist if they did that.
What stat are you using for current Palestinian population during this conflict? Any good estimate of the deaths to hunger over the next few years?
I don't believe that the charges in the report require success either way, but it would help with your statistics.
Even according to Hamas own numbers, 60,000 Palestinians died, 200 from starvation. That's very low compared to real genocides. That's very low considering Israel killed an estimated 10,000 of Hamas soldiers. That's pretty good accuracy in all modern standards of war.
A 1:6 ratio for civilian deaths is not a good civilian casualty ratio by the standards of modern warfare. Russia in Ukraine is currently achieving a rate of about 1:3, and that's a country that's currently considered rather brutal as far as civilian casualty rates go. The US in the Iraq War managed urban operations with kill ratios better than 1:1.
According to Wikipedia between 25 and 33 thousand Bosnians and Croats were killed in the Bosnian genocide. Thus your argument doesn't hold, unless you contend that there was no genocide in Bosnia either.
Are you arguing that whether something does or doesn't genocide can the boiled down to a percentage. As it turns out, a lot of people disagree with that view.
Yep, it’s odd to call it a genocide when their population has been growing continuously, and significantly. Israel can’t both be a highly effective genocidal force and also failing to actually succeed at the outcomes of a genocide.
[flagged]
> I find it funny people still find the UN legitimate. They still haven't criticised Hamas attack
I find it funny that you have to lie so much. They did, it's easy to find. My father is from a Christian orphanage in east Jerusalem. My grandmother hosted sisters and priests from Israel who worked in schools, hospice and orphanage all over the two countries. UN school programs there had a lot of issues, but being religious (Hamas was a religious group before being a terrorist one) or close to Hamas wasn't one (having no heating in schools during winter and having to sometime amputate toes from 10 year old was probably the biggest issue that I remember).
UNRWA schoolbooks for you: https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education...
and first UN general assembly resolution condemning hamas attack is the one from the past week that speaks about recognition of palestinian state.
unless you can find different one
United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21 (Oct. 27th 2023):
> Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction
https://docs.un.org/en/A/ES-10/L.25
The UN has been condemning the Hamas terrorist attacks from the start.
no condemnation of hamas attack. no mention of hamas. generic one that was mixed in into condemnation of israeli response.
This resolution didn’t mention the IDF either, nor any other Zionist terror groups. Why do you want the UN to single out Hamas here? The wording was quite clear and it is easy for anybody reading this who they were referring to.
obviously UN wouldn't like to single out hamas which just executed mass massacre which proudly livestreamed on internet.
i wouldn't expect UN to care about it.
This resolution came 20 days into what would eventually be known as the Gaza genocide. The IDF had enganged in dozens of massacres at this point. The number of Palestinian victims was already over 6x that of the Oct 7 massacres (7326 when the resolution was published).
If the resolution was going to mention Hamas, it would also have to mention the IDF. The wording was deliberate for that reason.
the only attempt on genocide was hamas attempt to kill as much jews and infadels as possible. but you glance over this, because this genocide you approve of.
here is nice quote [0] : "for the past two years theHamas leadership had been talking about implementing "the last promise" (alwaed al'akhir) – a divine promise regarding the end of days, when all human beings will accept Islam. Sinwar and his circle ascribed an extreme and literal meaning to the notion of "the promise, " a belief that pervaded all their messages: in speeches, sermons, lectures in schools and universities. The cardinal theme was the implementation of the last promise, which included the forced conversion of all heretics to Islam, or their killing."
everything that followed would be eventually known as largest brainwashing by mainstream and social media.
[0] https://judaic.arizona.edu/sites/judaic.arizona.edu/files/20...
I can't refute all their findings, but it's still worth looking at the board of that org:
https://www.impact-se.org/about-us/impact-se-board-members/
For an organization ostensibly concerned with education to violence everywhere, that's a LOT of board members with direct connections to Israel.
I also think it's common sense that if an occupying force deliberately ensures your living conditions become ever worse, shoots your friends and family to death for throwing stones and eventually obliterates entire families, that you don't exactly need textbooks to develop hatred.
As for "from the Nile to the Euphrates", just ask Daniella Weiss: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-21/ty-article-ma...
"i can't refute the facts so i will have to do character assassination".
(i'll remind that those are books that are taught by UN agency)
the atlantic article from 1961 about unrwa camps showing that they were taught back than liberation of entire area by force and destruction of israel https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1961/10/208-4/132...
it's almost like if population is educated for violence for 50 years, it will behave violently and it will result in counter action from "occupying force"
on the other side, Israeli population is been subjected to palestinian violence for extended period. Pretty much everybody was either target of it or lost somebody to it.
Lets see what do we have in Israeli schoolbooks: https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/Arabs-and-Pales...
Yeah, they do that stuff in the pre-army courses instead.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-09-04/ty-article-op...
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-09/ty-article-ma...
i am talking about systemic things in education system. not about random anecdotes. also good chunk of israeli population (and even bigger chunk of those serving in army) is secular and whatever random rabi says means nothing.
but kudos on shifting goal posts.
The UN secretary general condemned it the day it happened.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sgsm21981.doc.htm
"The UN is HAMAS" is certainly .. an opinion
Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Does it need to be condemned? Is Hamas a legitimate, recognised state and member of the UN? Israel is a sovereign state and member of the UN; it is therefore subject to higher standards. It should leave the UN or withdraw its staff, incl. its ambassador, if it does not like the UN.
Hamas is the government of Gaza.
Given the Israeli military are defacto state sponsored terrorists (see e.g. their active support of settler violence on the West Bank if you want to avoid Gaza related complaints). That means every single company in Israel is employing terrorists.
Sure. The Israel military rapes, kills, slaughter, and rob Gaza and West bank. The IDF is exactly like Hamas sure. /s if you didn't understand.
The Israelis live in the West Bank. The IDF is there to protect them. There is no violence whatsoever from the settlers. It's pure propaganda. There were a few rare times of some violence, but it's nothing compared to what the Palestinians do. Last week, two Palestinians crossed the border and murdered 6 people and 20+ injured on a bus shooting in Jerusalem. They even kill each other.
Each time the IDF comes into Palestinians "cities" to catch terrorists, they throw rocks on them.
> no violence whatsoever
The UN reported that, in the West Bank, Palestinians killed 6 Israeli settlers and 16 soldiers, while Israelis killed 719 Palestinians, from October 7, 2023, to October 7, 2024" https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-situation-updat...
International journalists can't access Gaza, but they have witnessed first hand settler violence. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewy88jle0eo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0pHcC0HMiQ
> while Israelis killed 719 Palestinians
Can't find it on the source you provided. The source you provided also justifies terrorists cries about their home being destroyed. It's interesting from where they get these numbers, from Palestinians?
Apologies, that was for the week ending September 30, only 695 had been killed at that stage in the West Bank. The week ending October 10 has the 719 figure for the full 365 days: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-situation-updat...
What authority, other than the local government, would you be more comfortable with providing those numbers?
any breakdown between civilians and combatants ?
about year ago PA tried to remove Hamas and other charity organizations for Jenin and other cities (that it typically can't entered) but failed and asked Israel to intervene what Israel did.
So you have interesting situation, when Palestinian authority asks Israel to kill palestinians and than Israel is blamed for killing palestinians.
Good that you mention it, yes Israel rapes, kills, robs, as you say. https://www.btselem.org/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell
[flagged]
I really do. (personal note: I never know if I should engage with these trolls, given them more visibility, or simply ignore them, risking seeing their propaganda spread)
We know they do. Now adjust what that tells you about the "first world".
Being a "first-world" country has never been incompatible with war crimes.
> Again, this is an unreliable source. It provides Palestinians testimonies. In Gaza the amount of untruthful testimonies is disgusting.
Yeah we get it, all Arabs are liars. Anyone who has sympathy for them is a liar. The Sde Teiman video is a fake and also the soldiers in it are all heroes. Israel has the most moral army in the world. IDF soldiers never post TikToks of themselves committing war crimes and laughing about it. It's not as if a person could spend 5 seconds online and find video evidence of these atrocities.
Sde Teiman MAYBE was real (there is still no proof, and it still being investigated by ISRAEL), but we're talking about terrorists whom murdered and raped people, not citizens.
TikTok is the most propagned platform currently. Not only about Gaza, but about everything. In the mean time, all the injured/starved citizens that were pictured and put on news papers were all a lie. I can also tell you I see many, many videos of sustained shops, rich food, candies and whatever first-world country has in Gaza. Give me one video please.
Where is your evidence?
It's evident for example that this thin child that was put on the front page of NYT was actually suffering from a genetic disorder. It's also evident that the pictures of Gaza citizens starving with their bowls out asking for food, was actually a complete lie (you can find pictures from the side, and not only from the front). Yet you still see those images on TikTok.
You mean Mohammad Al-Motawaq, the boy with muscular dystrophy? MD wasn't the cause of this weight loss, a lack of food was.
Unless you'd prefer to trust the word of an Israeli blogger over the childs doctors (because of their ethnicity).
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/05/nx-s1-5488798/gaza-baby-starv...
Where is your evidence to back any of your opinions?
I don't think I can even give you the benefit of the doubt of being clueless, you're just deliberately spreading false propaganda.
IDF is 100 times worse than Hamas. What do you mean?
Qualitatively, no. On the other hand, there's this saying in war, quantity is a quality its own. So, IDF looks very bad right now.
[flagged]
Since 1948, on average, the IDF has killed 10x as many Palestinians that Israelis killed.
Since October 7th, that is at least 60x.
[flagged]
IDF is state sponsored; they (and Israel more broadly) have a responsibility to comport themselves within the bounds of international law. If they choose not to, then they are behaving like terrorists.
Yes, everyone that criticizes Israel for killing and mutilating thousands of children in the most horrible ways is Hamas, we already know that...
AlJazeera is far better than most Western Media.
[flagged]
The UN discredits itself: UNGA 2015-2023, 154 resolutions against Israel, 71 against all other countries _combined_.
Of course it stems from the anti-Israeli bias of its members: a single Jewish state against 57 Muslim states.
I think this was an even clearer example of the UN's anti-Israel bias: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/debunked-un-off...
Very blatant disinformation from a top UN official (leader of OCHA), no retraction or apology, and no consequences.
[dead]
Or it stems from Israel committing more war crimes than other nations
Does it seem plausible to you that during the years of the Syrian civil war, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Tigray war in Ethiopia, the war in South Sudan and countless others (conflicts which, in total, claimed the lives of millions), Israel would commit war crimes at a ratio of 2:1 against the entire world, combined?
In contrast, the number of deaths from both Israeli and Palestinian sides in the same time period was several hundreds.
[flagged]
You forgot, the West Bank, under apartheid, extreme settler violence, constant and massive home expropriation, is also khamas, although no khamas ever walked on it.
It's part of a broader phenomena: feelings over facts. Doesn't matter how many commissions say it's genocide and how much evidence is presented, people don't "feel" it is true, therefore it is not true. Zero difference between these people, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxers.
[flagged]
[flagged]
that sounds like IDF propaganda and their credibility is basically non-existent
My claims have been widely reported in the media
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Seeing the number of flagged comments, and going from past discussions where any discussion seen as pushback was flagged, this discussion really doesn't belong on hacker news.
Technology enables so many of these problems and yet the technology builders want to flag it off the face of the internet?
The infrastructure for genocide needs a lot of technology and technology related subject. The victims of genocides include technology workers, hobbyists and hackers. No doubt there are HN members who are current victims of the ongoing genocide. They deserve our sympathy and their existence needs to be acknowledged.
[flagged]
When peoples' comments are flagged to invisibility, there isn't discussion occuring. When people aren't willing to post, discussion isn't occurring.
[flagged]
The problem is there obviously isn't any discussion happening. People are so entrenched on one side or the other and that's pretty apparent by this comment section. Everyone wants to virtue signal without taking any responsibility. The unfortunate reality of this situation is that it's extremely complex and weaves in a lot of historical context. But nobody cares about nuance anymore it's all just "killing bad!" within the framework of whatever controversial event is on the inciters mind. Well duh, but how did we get here? If we can't stop and consider both sides constructively then clearly we're never going to get anywhere and shit like this will just continue.
That's essentially the pro-Israel argument for decades (Including the opinion that killing somehow weren't always bad). It hasn't prevented the current situation.
But don't let that stop you. Feel free to make a nuanced and well-researched counterargument why the UN report is wrong.
I'm not sure what you're pointing to in my response to attribute it to Israeli support. I was attempting to make light of the fact that 'discussion' requires two sides. Right now both sides live in a different reality. I am in no way condoning Israel's genocide against Palestinians. But to say Israel is the only one at fault for this situation and to only point fingers to one side betrays the historical facts of the situation. I in no way tried to downplay the situation or play sides so please don't twist my words as if I did.
The problem is that there is a massive power imbalance in the conflict and insisting on "both sides" without acknowledging that is itself muddying the waters.
Accusations of "one-sidedness" for everything that doesn't follow the Israeli narrative of the conflict has been a standard defense for decades, last employed against the two-states UN resolution.
That's why I find (naive) insistence on seeing "both sides" problematic in this conflict. By all means, do see both sides, but see them with their respective amounts of power and historical context.
I 100% agree with you here. Which is why it's important to have the acknowledgement that this isn't an isolated situation. There is a 'one-sidedness' for Israel against the Palestinians, in the same way that there's a 'one-sidedness' for the entirety of the Arab nations against the Israeli's. For as long as Israel has existed they've been fighting against their own genocide. I haven't seen anyone acknowledging that? Or that the Arab nations were the ones to provoke the Israeli's in the first place? I find no love for Israel, but we make it waaaay too easy for them to justify these positions. Like it or not it's not as simple as everyone seems to make it out to be. The western nations and the other Arabs were the ones to give up on the Palestinians first, but now all of a sudden we care? Like I said, it's all virtue signaling.
> For as long as Israel has existed they've been fighting against their own genocide. I haven't seen anyone acknowledging that? Or that the Arab nations were the ones to provoke the Israeli's in the first place?
It was so obvious that you were trying to carefully push Zionist propaganda from the very start, but here you went from 0 to 100% hasbara real quick. This isn't 1990, you won't get away with this kind of blatant Zionist revisionism; there are about 10000+ academic articles and videos now that teach the history in painful detail. So give it a rest with your lazy propaganda.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231029055310/ojp.gov/ncjrs/vir...
It's sad that we can't take an objective look at the facts of the matter without trying to point to one side and saying it's propaganda. Like is it so hard to say that both sides did bad things? I have no problem acknowledging that Israel is being the ultimate bully right now, is it not okay to say they have a reason? Or should we just ignore all reasoning and condem "killing bad" like I initially said this would devolve to? The US literally has the same problem right now it's kind of insane. How can you try to swat away historical facts, then in the same breath link me a random master's thesis from 1977... Like can we just go to Wikipedia, start from the beginning and then disagree over the facts that actually happened instead of trying to see it through the lens of some 20s something from the 70s?
so after trying to mislead people with outright lies and historical revisionism based on zionist fantasies, you are trying to "both sides" a livestream genocide and about a century of brutal zionist colonialism. That's your strategy.
>How can you try to swat away historical facts
The cognitive dissonance of Zionists needs to be studied in Universities across the world. You are straight up lying into people's faces and in the same breath projecting your own behavior on others "trying to 'swat away historical facts'". It's truly astonishing.
Sorry, can you point out exactly where I've lied and how? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire history of this conflict goes back to the UN partition plan in 47, which established a Jewish and Palestinian state. Which then lead to the 47-48 civil war, which from everything I've found relating to it, the Arab's were the ones to retaliate against the Jews in the region which started the war and it's been basically tit for tat ever since. A Palestinian petition to the Security Council in 48 even said this: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
I have no issue discussing this situation, in fact that was the whole point of my original statement. Which is that most people seem too emotionally attached to this situation to the point where they can't even have a proper discussion without trying to talk down to me about a position I don't even hold.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101003080945/http://unispal.un...
>Sorry, can you point out exactly where I've lied and how?
I already quoted that exact part and even referenced the academic work which elaborated on it in detail. It was also not a "random" master thesis, it is academic work that is cited by the United States Government.
>Correct me if I'm wrong
"Entertain my Zionist revisionism". I've heard variations of your hasbara for 2 decades. It's insane that you still think that you can just lie in people's faces when everybody can just fact check you in a jiffy. You obviously don't care about the facts, that's why you persist in trying to deceive people with Zionist revisionism, but for others who happen to stumble upon this convo here some elaboration that concisely debunks these Zionist talking points:
- "The Conflict Based on a Lie" https://youtu.be/dy56Q1a0Flc - "The Masterplan for the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" https://youtu.be/C3cnRcfp_us
For anyone who is more interested in a comprehensive study of the history, Zachary Foster is a jewish historian whose research can be found at palestinenexus.com of which he is the founder of.
I would go back to the founding principle of Zionism, and claim that the start of the conflict was when Zionists decided to colonize Palestine and found their own nation state on other people’s lands.
But if you insist on starting with the Palestinian civil war then you will soon find that a lot of Palestinians were expelled from their lands and never granted the right of return. It was not merely the partition, but the fact the international human rights granted the right of return for Palestinians illegally expelled, but this international human rights was promptly denied to Palestinians and has been till this day. There is no tit for tat here, as Zionists have not been illegally displaced and Zionists don’t have their rights of return denied to them.
I'm starting with 47 on the basis of the Jewish/Arab conflict. If we claim that the idea of Zionism started the conflict in the area then it doesn't seem like the history fully supports that idea. Jews in the late 1800s were getting worried about the antisemitism in Europe and wanted their own solution to "The Jewish Question" which to them was the formation of their own state. There were even talks about settling in different parts of Africa. But it wasn't until the Balfour Declaration that Zionism was completely focused on Palestine, mostly because the British didn't know what to do with the region after defeating the Ottoman Empire in the region.
>There is no tit for tat here, as Zionists have not been illegally displaced and Zionists don’t have their rights of return denied to them.
The claim Zionists make here is that the land was originally Jewish land to begin with. History does support this claim as the Roman Empire took over Judaea in the early first century and then subsequently exterminated and enslaved the Jews in the region renaming the area to Syria Palaestina about 100 years later.
[flagged]
As far as I understand, they've made many offers to release the hostages in exchange for their own people or for other concessions. You can track the negotiations pretty well, although occasionally the diplomats get bombed for some reason.
Diplomats - who don't even live in the strip - were recently (unsuccessfully) bombed.
If Hamas wants to end the war (or supposed genocide) then they can release the hostages with no additional demands. The fact that the supposed genocide victims choose to continue the war is quite the sign that this is not genocide, in what other situation would a victim choose to continue a war that is a genocide against his people?
The victims are the 60k+ dead people (including children), stop confusing things, you know this.
No one here is defending Hamas
They've offered! Israel's government is demonstrably not interested in the hostages.
[flagged]
The war could stop at any minute, if only Netanyahu stops it.
Why would Netanyahu stop the war? It is the only pressure on Hamas.
The way war usually works, is the side that feels it has something to loose, sues for peace by making concessions. However the international backing of Hamas has ensured them that they have nothing to loose, and everything to gain, by attacking the Jewish state.
it's not a war Netanyahu is killing innocent people and taking a full population hostage.
Also, most of the people in Gaza are not Hamas members and are regular civilians. What Natanyahu is doing is basically analog to the following:
A killer take a member of your family as a hostage (Hamas in this case is the killer) so you decide to kill a member of their family every hour until they release your beloved one. Do you think that this is acceptable or are you trying to make it acceptable?
Gaza isn’t just “regular civilians”. When Israel stepped away from Gaza, those civilians VOTED for Hamas. They opted for the fundamentalist, reprehensible charter that Hamas has. Sure you can claim that younger residents were not voting in that election - but they’re part of the same population and culture that empowers Hamas and Islamic terrorism. They’re not the same but they aren’t unlinked either.
> A killer take a member of your family as a hostage (Hamas in this case is the killer) so you decide to kill a member of their family every hour until they release your beloved one. Do you think that this is acceptable or are you trying to make it acceptable?
This is not what is happening. Israel has gone through painstaking effort to avoid collateral damage as much as is practical when you are dealing with terrorists hiding among a willing civilian population. If they wanted to, they could have easily leveled the entire city in the first couple days of this conflict, which obviously did not happen. They’re not “deciding to kill a member of their family”. They’re contains the security risk to Israel and its residents with as little collateral damage as possible.
Do you know why you have so many videos of buildings being destroyed in the Gaza strip? Because Israel warns away civilians before destroying them. Doesn't sound to me like Israel is trying to kill civilians.
Combined with the other ongoing conflicts it really feels like we’re in a WW3 era
I don't want to downplay the atrocities going on in the current conflicts, but this sort of comment deserves some perspective.
About 70 million people were killed in WW2, as of the present day about 1 million have died in the war Russia is waging against Ukraine and about 70k people have died in the Israeli/Palestine conflict. The horrors are most certainly real. But WW3 this era is most certainly not, that's thankfully off by an order of magnitude.
The World Wars were called World Wars because of the number conflicts and the powers involved. While the casualties and damage has been lower, it seems like the powers are at least indirectly involved at the moment.
If you look back through history this has been the case since at least the Cold War, though. All the proxy hot wars in the Cold War, for example, back when the world was bi-polar. Now it’s multipolar with similar proxy wars.
Yes, but WWII also had a phase called Phony War, and after that much of the war was in Poland.
We could say that Ukraine is the current Poland.
The Phony War was the phase between the fall of Poland (took ~1 month) and the invasion of France, where the dominant phase of the war was actually taking place in Norway.
Sadly history is a very poorly studied topic.
I look at European leaders and they don't seem to remember it any better.
The best way to teach history would be to make politicians dig slit trenches and then shell them for a few days. Anything less than that people will always end up regurgitating ethno nationalist bullshit or "geopolitics".
[flagged]
There is no discussion only mass flagging for anyone who isnt in lockstep on this. This is why politics is usually a subject to be avoided.
I am sure i will be flagged despite completely agreeing with the UN here but if any real change is to happen, minds must be changed which mass flagging does nothing to help. It only further entrenches people. But hey, at least it feels good right? Righteous and all that.
For those who disagree with the UN here, id be happy to change your mind. The us should not be involved in any of this.
The UN’s teeth appear to be red white and blue.
May we remain condemned for our failure to stop this for all of time.
Comments on this post are disabled for new accounts, but in the era of anti-BDS regulation and other measures aimed specifically at curtailing practical freedom of speech surrounding this conflict, can we really comment freely on this without anonymity? The vast majority (38/50) of US states have passed some form of anti-BDS legislation. We can also expect corporate retaliation against employees who speak about this issue in a "wrong way".
It's always useful to balance these claims against their critics.
Towards that end I offer up unwatch.
https://unwatch.org/
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch:
> Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" ... Primarily, UN Watch denounces what it views as anti-Israel sentiment at the UN and UN-sponsored events.
unwatch is funded by religious lunatics in Israel. Nobody takes it seriously.
True. And in the interest of balancing the claims of the critics, I offer up the observation that UN Watch is "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" (AFP article: Capella, Peter. "UN Gaza probe chief underlines balanced approach." 7-Jul-2009. https://web.archive.org/web/20111222162658/https://www.googl...).
And most of the UN are nations who depend upon Arab oil, or who are in an ideological conflict with the US.
Nice critic. I remember on Reddit watching someone get blown up the other day while carrying water while it was still up. I think they were under 10.
Not sure if they died or just lost all their limbs.
That was a young Gazan girl who tripped a Hamas IED that had been set for Israeli troops. That's why there was a camera pointed at it.
>That was a young Gazan girl
Are we sure we are talking about the same child who got blown up? There is quite a few.
Not 100% sure, but that one was posted all over as they tried to pin it on Israel. It could have been another, unfortunately many children are dying right now.
Is there a specific report arguing that Israel is not committing genocide? I don’t see it on the home page.
Unwatch is, and has always been, critical of everything the UN does with regards to Israel. Had the UN made one statement like "Israel should not arbitrarily detain children and hold them without fair trials", I am pretty sure unwatch would twist it into antisemitism.
Is there a specific report arguing that the US, or Canada, or the UK, are not committing genocide?
Isn't that an Israeli "hasbara" site? The Israelis have admitted that they use the false cry of "antisemitism" to attack.
"Calling it antisemitism - it’s a trick we always use." Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Minister
https://x.com/SuppressedNws/status/1896748975207952758
How is that a refutation?
If I want to understand any position I would look for first sources. Say I want to understand why Russian invaded Ukraine, I would seek out Russian sources. When I try to understand the Palestinian position, I seek out Palestinian sources.
The beautiful thing about intellectual honesty and openness is that you don't have to agree with any position. You can expose yourself to things that deeply conflict with your personal values and walk away with a deeper understanding of why you value what you value, and how to refute ideas that you strongly disagree with.
To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge. You're saying that the very reason to dismiss it, to not even bother entertaining its arguments is because it is Israeli and no other reason. Beyond that, you are even arguing that any claims of prejudice can be dismissed outright on the basis of one thing that one Israeli Minster once said [allegedly].
That is the very definition of prejudice.
I agree. I find it interesting to hear from Palenstinian sources about their motivations and goals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJxjmEbUZxM
Quite simply Israelis and Jews are not the same group, otherwise you would be holding all Jews on the planet responsible for this genocide. Dismissing the source for being Israeli is not antisemitic.
There are many examples of Israeli sources lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA to the unconscionable excuse of burying medics and the ambulances they were in, to avoid wild dogs eating them.
Israeli sources rarely offer evidence to refute the claims presented in this report, and a cry of antisemitism, as stated, conflates Judeism with Israeli nationality, hence these sources are worthless at best.
re: "baseless claims against UNRWA"
They come with receipts. Uncomfortable as they are.
https://unwatch.org/evidence-of-unrwa-aid-to-hamas-on-and-af...
Which are not validated by the UN, Norway etc. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148821 If the claims were valid, countries would not have restarted funding to UNRWA. Simple.
I note you've not denied the issues with claims of antisemitism which are important.
There is considerable evidence that there is a deep connection between members of Hamas and its extensive support network and UNRWA.
Receipts: https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/
If that's not antisemitic, I'm not sure what would be in your mind.
But I think for you, you are able to dismiss it because the rest of the world choose to not see it.
I was referring to your conflation of Israelis with Jews, and calling dismissal of an Israeli news source antisemitic, which it is not.
I'm saying that a biased Israeli news source is less valid than the actions of dozens of countries, which decided to restart funding.
It is telling that UN votes for a ceasefire are only opposed by the US, Israel and a handful of client states. This is a genocide, and most countries seem to agree on that.
First, I think you are conflating two different authors in this thread.
Second, you dismissed what you deemed to be Israeli sources as "lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA". I brought up evidence otherwise - specifically that their claims are not baseless. Dismiss _that_ as biased all you want, but its just links to social media posts from Hamas members. Members of Hamas that also work for UNRWA in some fashion.
We do agree that the US and Israel standing alone is telling. But we will disagree on what it means. For me it confirms just how morally bankrupt the United Nations is. I see no epistemological value in just conforming to the majority when I see clear evidence otherwise.
"To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge."
We agree it is an Israeli source.
All the unwatch site does is accuse Israel's critics of being antisemites. When you can't respond to the message, attack the messenger. Accuse them of being antisemitic and being funded by Hamas.
The Israelis have taken it to the point of farce!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/stop-antisem...
Receipts: https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/
You are aware that Shulamit Alloni was on the extreme left and was criticizing this supposed misuse of Antisemitism, this is not some playbook
The american equivalent would be to quote Bernie Sanders saying "America is fascist" and then saying, see? therefore the USA system of government is fascism, even Congress agrees!
[flagged]
Of course ignoring that Hamas was deliberately funded by Israel to cause a split between the politics of the West Bank and Gaza to prevent a unified political authority in Palestine.
I can well imagine a parallel universe where Israel gave them NO money whatsoever. You know what would have happened? Hamas would do the usual Islamic fundamentalist thing. Form a terrorist group and attack Israel. And then media commentators and intellectuals would accuse Israel of failing to help Hamas get put on the right path by helping them at the start, and instead Israel's inaction was like strangling a baby in the cradle. Typical Israel! Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
And today they are promoted by second and third world countries who oppose the first world, specifically to divide the first world nations.
They are succeeding.
This sounds to me like you are trying portray poorer countries as lesser worth because they had the guts of calling Israel out.
The solution to rich countries being divided on an the issue of an ongoing genocide is you know, not committing said genocide.
What does "poorer" have anything to do with it? Is that some tactic to garner sympathy?
> However, Third World is still used as a (pejorative) term for the traditionally less-developed world (e.g. Africa)
So now the entire west, NATO and other US allies should with blinded conviction approve of the genocide?
This seems like you are afraid of isolation and the fallout of the ongoing genocide.
There’s cracks showing and you know when they open Israel will lose its privileged position.
You can criticize it, but the fact that we're here should tell you enough already.
There is no "yes, but" when genocide is taking place.