49 ms·

'Like we were lesser humans': Gaza boys, men recall Israeli arrest, torture

• Aerbil313 3y ago
  HN is once again absolutely disgusting on this. Zionism of the SV elites couldn't show itself more clearly, as if the last thread's article was not enough evidence.
• YeBanKo 3y ago
  Al Jazeera is not an unbiased source and it a one sided view, yet it made it to the top. It has nothing to do with tech. What I have not seen made it this far: * Stories documenting intentional atrocities against Israeli civilians. * Vile propaganda calling for violence against Jews and Israeli, plentifully available on everywhere. * Stories about how Hamas still were firing rockets into Israel, while complaining that Gaza needs fuel, food, etc. * Mind blowing testimonies in Congress by the heads of some of the most prestigious universities in the world, where they said that it depends on the context if calling for genocide of Jewish is a violation of the code. Their hypocrisy has been exposed. Their academic excellence has been reasonable questioned. This is far more relevant to the tech, and yet, it gained very little traction, though it is very relevant to tech sector. * Ukraine has been pummeled by Russia continuously for more than a year. Everything from killing civilians, to destruction of critical infrastructure, descrying schools, murdering and tortureiung civilians and POWs, to hacking Ukrainian IT infrastructure, yet the highest rated submission about massacre in Bucha gained 164 points with 100 comments. The article makes multiple very strong claims about kids being killed by an Israeli sniper, soldiers with the American accent and Biden's sanction genocide. This is not a journalism. Btw, this is Al Jazeera's guide to Hamas that they published on Oct 8th, 2023: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-hamas-a-simple-guide-tothe-palestinian-group https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-h.... By this time some Telegram channels had already been flooded with videos of Israeli civilians murdered, mutilated and paraded among cheering Gazan civilians.
• limbojunkie 3y ago
  I come here to read tech news, not to care about two ideologically obnoxious sides who cannot throw their millennia old outdated beliefs away and live like how civilized people all around the world do.
• la64710 3y ago
  Just need one side to surrender to end a war.
  • jncfhnb 3y ago
    A group like hamas cannot functionally surrender. Nor does it have any incentive to.
    • Gibbon1 3y ago
      I see a lot of similarities between Hamas and other violent insurgent groups. They are intransigent and will always chose violence over any other more reasonable option[1]. And take decades of concerted effort to stamp out. The Muslim Brotherhood still exists despite decades of efforts to suppress it. [1] The sad thing is the road of violence is where the Palestinians are weakest. And the road of using shaming is where they are strongest.
    • exodust 3y ago
      Why can't hamas surrender? Why would you grant hamas exception to basic actions such as laying down arms? Of course hamas can surrender. It involves dropping weapons, raising hands, and submitting to the forces who have you out-gunned. That's how surrendering works. Surrendering and releasing hostages would go a long way towards the peace that so many want.
      • jncfhnb 3y ago
        Hamas could stop fighting, or it could technically dissolve itself in some nonsense world. But it does not derive legitimacy from overt, visible structures. Polite surrender is antithetical to its existence. Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict. Let alone the fact that Iran sits there too in the mix
        • exodust 3y ago
          > 'Polite surrender' Shirtless men surrendered so others can. Gaza is crumbling so the more shirtless men the better to encourage an end to violence. Israel should make sure not to disrespect those who surrender if they want more to follow. Maybe incentivise surrender beyond "we will bomb you otherwise". Regarding the shirtless thing, I was surprised to learn Hamas imposed laws ban men in Gaza from swimming topless (wikipedia). Before even getting to military Hamas, the "civil Hamas" has a long list of horrendous attributes. > 'Hamas does not want peace. It benefits from violent conflict.' Where's the benefit of dying or losing resources? The benefit of brutally targeting civilians? Unless we really are dealing with lesser humans? I've seen fictional zombies on TV behave with more restraint than jihad terrorists. Zombies would actually be easier to deal with when confined to an area, not yet spread over the world. IDF are undoubtedly fighting terror with terror, exactly like most of us would fighting against zombies.
• dang 3y ago
  All: if you're going to comment in this thread, please do not do so in the spirit of battle. The latter is off topic here, and the last thread HN had about this did not do well enough at keeping to the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Instead, ask first whether you can find a place of compassion in yourself before commenting. If you can't, that's understandable, but then please don't post. By compassion I mean something more spacious than angry identification. I'm not saying that this is the purpose of HN (we're not aiming quite that high) but I do think it's the only way to touch a topic like this without destroying that purpose, which is thoughtful, curious conversation. It may be nearly impossible to relate to such a topic from such a place, but nearly != entirely, and it's part of HN's mandate to try. Consider this an experiment, or perhaps an advanced exercise, in community.
  • srackey 3y ago
    This is a highly politically charged conflict that’s mainly relevant for being a sort of rhetorical proxy conflict (see all the other conflicts going on that receive a fraction of the attention). The point of discussing this topic is to rhetorically battle. Unlike say, the current civil war in Burma or Sudan, or the Azeri-Armenian war, basically everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say.
    • dang 3y ago
      That is not the only point of discussing this topic, and definitely not the point of discussing it here. This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time. I agree with you about this: > everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say ... but as I've explained elsewhere in this thread, I don't think suppressing the topic outright is a solution either (I mean a solution to the particular constraints of this site, not in general). So what do we do? We each work in ourselves to find a larger space than just our own opinion. We make room for the other alongside ourselves. If we can do that, we'll be able to comment from a place of openness rather than battle. For those who feel too intensely to do so: that is human—let's just be aware enough to recognize that state in ourselves and refrain from posting as long as we're in that state. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
• ameminator 3y ago
  I honestly don't think this subject should be on here. I don't think it's possible for a coherent or respectful or even useful conversation to happen here. I haven't seen any conversation about this topic that hadn't gone to hell.
  • 93po 3y ago
    As long as it's contained to a single place, people can choose to not click it and read other stuff and i think that's fine
  • dang 3y ago
    Yes, you're of course right—and at the same time, if I ask myself how to follow HN's core principle [1] in relation to this topic, I can't see "don't touch it at all" as right either. It may be an impossible quandary—but it's not in the spirit of this place to take an easy way out; or to put it differently, the easy way out (if one exists) is not in the spirit of this place. What does "curiosity" mean in a context like this? It certainly needs to be more than just a technical dissection of details. I think it has to do with being open to learning. For that we have to be open to each other. And for that, we have to first find some space for the other within ourselves. Comments that have to do with annihilating the other (including in virtual form, such as by defeating them in internet battle) are therefore off-topic in a thread like this, as I posted above. (Edit: there's also a kind of curiosity in walking into the impossible to find out what's doable; and also in taking a different approach with each attempt—which is why my pinned comment in this thread is different from last time.) [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
    • ameminator 3y ago
      You're also absolutely right - I hadn't considered that point of view, and that we also shouldn't be "de facto" censoring subjects. I implore the community here to not ruin the general HN forum with the usual insanity around this subject.
    • anovick 3y ago
• banku_brougham 3y ago
  Im glad to see the community engage with this -- there couldnt be a more significant current event happening right now and its jarring that it would be so silent. Edit: And why is it relevant here? At a minimum coworkers are suffering silently through it. The emotional damage just for internet bystanders is staggering.
  • tasubotadas 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • dang 3y ago
      Could you please stop posting personal attacks and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  • michalhosna 3y ago
    > there couldnt be a more significant current event happening right now Not that this should be a competition, but there still are other wars with atrocities/genocides happening at the moment. E.g. Ukraine
  • ameminator 3y ago
    In my experience, the "benefit of the doubt" has been lost in relation to this subject. I no longer believe it is possible to have any thread about this remain civil. It's tragic and a tragic subject, although I dispute the "there couldn't be a more significant current event" - lots of events are equally (or more) significant and relevant. I hope to be proven wrong, but I have doubts.
    • ardit33 3y ago
      [flagged]
• jraby3 3y ago
  Just a reminder that Aljazeera is the state sponsored news of Qatar, a county that hosts Hamas leaders and is close allies with Iran. It’s not a valid news source.
  • throwing_away 3y ago
    That would explain the factual inaccuracies that I've noticed in their reporting since the events of October. I assumed it was because of a religious ideology, but a state sponsor makes sense too.
    • ngcazz 3y ago
      Can you provide examples where they've been debunked?
      • throwing_away 3y ago
        Where it crystalized for me was watching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio... as it happened live. The AJ coverage: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-ha... From reading the AJ coverage, you would believe that Israel bombed a hospital and killed hundreds. An inexcusable atrocity, obviously, if it were true. But on Wikipedia, you can see the actual impact of the bombing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#/media/File:Aftermath_of_Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion_(1).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio... The US and Israel's story of it being a jihad rocket seems consistent with the explosion. The intelligence assessment that it was dozens not hundreds dead seems much more plausible to me. The AJ perspective seems to be to treat Hamas claims as valid by default throughout this conflict, which I find concerning.
        • dekhn 3y ago
          Al Jazeera was not unique in their short-term coverage - nearly all western outlets also wrote similar articles shortly afterward, based mainly on unsupported statements from Palestinians. As soon as day broke and people saw the actual photos of the impact area it was clearer that attributing the attack to either side would be challenging; several reputable outfits in the US even wrote short postmortems to understand why they did what they did and to prevent it in the future.
• blaufast 3y ago
  I think HN readers have a strong desire to speak the inconvenient or untouchable topics. I think this is a healthy impulse. This topic is hard because so many commenters are triggered by it, for lack of a better word. Could AI help here? What if a comment was given an automatic 'emotional temperature' score? We might be able to address the fact that a lot of the comments will be basically pure emotion, and we can discuss the emotions instead of being distracted by the content.
  • dang 3y ago
    Sentiment analysis tools haven't yet proved accurate enough to be useful for HN moderation; traditionally they misclassify too many things because they don't have access to intent. It does seem like LLMs have a chance at doing this better, though, and if anyone wanted to work on that, I'd certainly be interested in what they find.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• skyyler 3y ago
  The things I've read about happening in Gaza are horrific. I'm ashamed that my taxes are funding this. It doesn't feel like there's much that can be done to change that. AIPAC has a very serious influence on our government and I worry that its impact is just leading to more deaths and more suffering.
  • blaufast 3y ago
    Same. Then reminds me that the creation of the United States was based on strategic, coordinated genocide and I feel even worse.
    • skyyler 3y ago
      It feels like a lot of modern countries are built upon the destruction of previous cultures, in one way or another. Just a shame this one had to be SO violent.
    • bena 3y ago
      Not an inch of land on this planet isn't soaked with the blood of conquerors and the conquered alike.
      • shiroiuma 3y ago
        I agree with your sentiment, but there are a few places that haven't been bloodily conquered, such as Antarctica.
        • skyyler 3y ago
          There's also places like Bermuda that were uninhabited by humans before modern settlement. What the people did after settling is another question, though...
  • srackey 3y ago
    [flagged]
• noworriesnate 3y ago
  > “When they spoke to us in Hebrew and we wouldn’t understand, they’d beat us up,” he continues. > “They hit me in the back where my kidneys are and my legs. They took my family, and I don’t know where they are,” he says, his voice breaking. > Before they were forced inside the warehouse, Israeli female soldiers came and spat on the men, Mohammed recalls. > In the warehouse, it was common for groups of five soldiers to suddenly enter and beat one person while the others were forced to listen to his screams of pain. If any of the men and teenagers nodded off from exhaustion, the soldiers poured cold water on them. > “Their contempt for us was unnatural, like we were lesser beings,” Mohammed says. For some reason I find this last sentence so utterly beautiful in context it brings tears to my eyes. Here is a 14-year-old Arabic boy being tortured by Jews and STILL he operates from a worldview that viewing other human beings as lesser is unnatural. Thank you, Mohammed. What an image of beauty and horror.
  • myth_drannon 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • ngcazz 3y ago
      The same Israel who wanted the US to believe a mere calendar was proof of terrorist presence, or that a laminated Al Qaeda poster from 2004 "recovered" was proof said terrorists were prepping chemical weapons, or worse, who keeps telling Gazans they'll be safe in X before bombing the place.
    • mcguire 3y ago
      Might want to check your sources. The released prisoner with broken hands is Mohammed Nazzal; the one greeting his family is Mohammed Shatara. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/video-misidentifies-palestinian-prisoner-mohammed-nazzal-2023-12-08/ https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/video-misidentifies-pales... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67581915 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67581915
      • myth_drannon 3y ago
• myth_drannon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • foogazi 3y ago
    Killing the messenger ? Both statements could be true, right ? I don't look at this as cancelling outrage on both sides, nor justification for violence. If this happened to you in your country you'd raise the alarm, if 10/7 happened in your country you'd send the Army
• boeingUH60 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • suoduandao3 3y ago
    My taxes aren't funding that terrorist group.
    • srackey 3y ago
      That’s where you’re wrong. Your tax dollars (somehow) fund both sides
    • SkipperCat 3y ago
      But someone else's taxes are. Until we can convince both sides of this conflict that they need to love their children more than they hate their neighbor, this cycle will only repeat.
    • nradov 3y ago
      False. US taxpayers fund UN agencies which have sent large amounts of foreign aid to Gaza. Much of that money is diverted or embezzled by Hamas. https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-foreign-aid-gaza-strip-611b2b90c3a211f21185d59f4fae6a90 https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-forei...
      • ngcazz 3y ago
        Well, Hamas does govern Gaza, plus the blockade ensures Gaza is all but deprived of any material resources it needs to thrive.
• ycdxvjp 3y ago
  The only take that made any sense to me about what's going on there - https://michael-hudson.com/2023/11/israel-as-a-landed-aircraft-carrier/ https://michael-hudson.com/2023/11/israel-as-a-landed-aircra...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • blaufast 3y ago
    this is great. thanks for sharing
  • srackey 3y ago
    See Taiwan as another “stationary aircraft carrier”
  • cooloo 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • jgeada 3y ago
    Name a conflict or intervention by the US in that region that has made use of US assets based in Israel. Hint: there aren't any. We instead use assets in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. Using anything based in Israel would cause more problems than would be solved. Israel isn't really an asset to the US, it is more of a liability that we tolerate.
    • wharvle 3y ago
      Operating out of Israel would be an international relations nightmare for both the US and Israel. We’d not do it if we had any other options (and we’ve always had several, for relevant values of “always”) We give them aid to prevent another attempt at conquest by neighbors. The other prong of that fork is that we also pay Egypt (check out the list of top US aid recipients over the last few decades) to keep them out of any war-coalition of Israel’s neighbors, significantly reducing any such move’s likelihood of success. Why we do that, I’m not sure. I’ve not dug enough into the situation to have a solid answer. Anyone can think of some, but I’m not sure what the actual reasons are. I don’t think it’s anything like “to buy a base in the Levant” though.
• tomp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • jjgreen 3y ago
    Qatar hosts Hamas at US request according to David Petraeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terr...
• lossolo 3y ago
  Israel has also been imposing apartheid on Palestinians for years, a fact that high-ranking officials themselves admit [1][2], and which human rights reports confirm[3]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/israel-imposing-apartheid-on-palestinians-says-former-mossad-chief https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/israel-imposin... [2] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-13/ty-article/ex-israeli-general-says-army-partaking-in-west-bank-war-crimes-invokes-nazi-germany/00000189-ee00-d9cf-a7eb-ff2b12bf0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-13/ty-article/ex... [3] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • cassepipe 3y ago
    I used to think of the situation as an appartheid too as it seemed to be the most accurate comparison but if found that the more I learned about the situation that that comparison was not helpful at all unless your only purpose is to say that the situation of Palestinians is immoral (which it can be without being "appartheid")
    • nemo44x 3y ago
      [flagged]
  • LtWorf 3y ago
    It seems that in Israel there are (very small) quotas for non jewish people to be admitted at university. I've met muslim israeli who have learnt italian to go to study medicine in italy (where there is a notoriously extremely difficult entrance exam) because all of this was easier than going to a local university.
    • bushbaba 3y ago
      Source in that? Here’s a source countering https://www.timesofisrael.com/number-of-arab-students-in-israeli-universities-grows-78-in-7-years/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/number-of-arab-students-in-isr...
• cassepipe 3y ago
  Those are the most serious allegations: "The men and teenage boys were taken to a warehouse where they sat on a bare floor covered in scattered grains of rice. There they were beaten, interrogated and verbally abused. There was no sleep, and the grains of rice cut their skin as they sat there, undressed." A man claims: "Some people didn’t return from the torture sessions. We would hear their screams and then nothing.” From what I read, it seems typical of counterinsurgency war. A testimony is no proof but humiliation and torture is commonplace is counterinsurgency wars, whether systematic or an initiative of lower ranking soldiers operating on the ground, so it's not an extraordinary statement. And torture can obviously lead to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency Now I am going to argue something polemic and I am arguing it in the spirit of discussion. I'd love to read well argued counter-arguments : However supportive of Israel one may be and how repulsed one should be by Hamas, I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. You may think it is justified in doing so but it still is payback imho. In my country's law, individual self-defense is defined as such : 1. It has to happen in the same time as the agression 2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression 3. The defense has to be proportionate It seems that so 1. is not met since once all the militants having trespassed having been killed, Israel was no more defending itself. and it's hard to believe that the civilian collateral damage is just defending either. I'd say the third criteria is met in so far as Hamas has rockets and automatic weapons. Is that an unreasonable take ?
  • PoignardAzur 3y ago
    The Israeli military also claims to be trying to rescue hostages, though whether it's prosecuting the most effective strategy there is hotly debated.
    • dredmorbius 3y ago
      It's ... interesting ... to note that this is precisely the sort of "ticking time bomb" scenario often raised in justification of torture and rampant surveillance: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario> It would be interesting to see how well the abusive and transgressive approach fares against one that's far more sympathetic to the interrogatee. U.S. experience from the Iraq war was that soft-touch interrogations were far more effective. This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming.... Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.” <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-takes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-ta...> (There are other instances of F.B.I. and military interrogators reporting both that testimony obtained under torture is either misleading or no more accurate, useful, or timely than that obtained under sympathetic treatment. I believe there was a Fresh Air Interview following 9/11 / the 2nd US-Iraq War though I've yet to locate it. There's a searchable archive for anyone with stronger search-fu here: <https://freshairarchive.org/ https://freshairarchive.org/>. Specifically matching "interrogation": <https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation>.)
• anovick 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • jacooper 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • awinograd 3y ago
      The parent comment is discussing a different hospital, Al-Ahli on Oct 17th, vs Al-Shifa on Nov 10th which is the article you're linking to from NYT. Civilians being injured in a hospital is clearly a tragedy. That's why hospitals normally have protected status during a war and targeting them would be a war crime. However, hospitals (and other protected sites like schools) lose their protected status when they're used for military purposes[1]. That doesn't make the situation less tragic for the civilians. But there's a difference between striking a random hospital because you want to kill civilians and killing civilians while striking hostile forces in the same vicinity that may be actively shooting at you. [1] https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflicts-what-law-says https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during...
      • jacooper 3y ago
        They were never used as Military centers, they is zero evidence Hamas was there. And they just committed a new massacre in a school. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/12/13/israel-hamas-war-live-world-calls-for-ceasefire-as-israel-bombards-gaza https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/12/13/israel-ha...
        • awinograd 3y ago
          Hamas bringing hostages on Oct 7th to Al Shifa: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-video-hamas-hostages-al-shifa-hospital-tunnel-gaza-rcna125948 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-video-hamas-hostag... There is clearly a Hamas presence at the hospital based on the video. Additionally, there are tunnel shafts in the complex that lead to dozens of meters of tunnels with wiring/electricity connected to the hospital. Granted, the electricity comment is impossible to verify, but the tunnel system is clearly there. I don't have any guesses of who besides hamas would have built/used a tunnel like that. Person with an RPG next to steps of Al Quds hospital: https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaza-al-quds-idf-terrorist-hamas-rpg-launcher-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaza-al... Hard to tell if this person is affiliated with Hamas or some other group, but it's clearly a combatant at the hospital. RE the school: It's kind of difficult to tell what has happened. Clearly the school was the site of fighting, but I don't see any evidence in that video showing point blank executions of anybody let alone civilians or infants as was described.
• hiddencost 3y ago
  My political awareness was forged by the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the American response. The core lesson: the point of a terrorist attack is to trigger an over reaction. America wildly over reacted and became fundamentally hostile to Arab and Muslim people. This reaction led to some of the most successful recruiting of radicals in generations. Israel's response to this crisis seems to have failed to learn from that mistake.
  • PoignardAzur 3y ago
    To misquote Bryan Cantrill, one should not make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Netanyahu. When a nationalist politician like him is faced with an event like this, long-term international diplomacy considerations barely enter the picture. The violence just comforted him in his previous worldviews, all he saw was that his nationalistic policies were justified and the only viable answer was to be even more of a nationalist. I don't see any reality where he didn't have the most violent response he could get away with.
    • megaman821 3y ago
      If there as an election tomorrow in Israel, do you think the new leader would be against war? Like it or not, Hamas' actions have prompted a response from the Israeli people, a different leader wouldn't change that sentiment.
      • angiosperm 3y ago
        True, Israeli votes are the only votes that have had, and can have, any material effect there. They have voted for Netanyahu reliably for years, so the present situation, Hamas included, is what they have, collectively, chosen. Hamas has always been Netanyahu's staunchest political ally. If Israeli voters ever choose differently, change might be possible. Until then, things will be reliably more of the same.
        • ido 3y ago
          Netanyahu has in fact won less than 50% of the votes but due to a technicality managed to assemble a coalition with other parties that amounted to 64 of 120 seats in parliament (similar to Bush Jr. and Trump having won US elections despite winning less than 50% of the votes due to the electoral college). The latest polls show Netanyahu and his government with a less than 30% approval rating, this was hardly a slam dunk victory (and in fact Netanyahu replaced another prime minister who ruled between his terms when he barely won the November 2022 elections).
• next_xibalba 3y ago
  I have reached a point where I question and doubt any news that comes out of this conflict. Both sides and their proxies are waging massive propaganda campaigns. I only feel contempt for the leaders on both sides, and pity for all the regular people caught in the carnage. But of course, their suffering will be fodder for yet more propaganda…
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • pazimzadeh 3y ago
    That should be the norm for all news. Always remain skeptical, of all sides.
• bluescrn 3y ago
  Meanwhile, Egypt seems to get a free pass, minimal criticism for keeping its border locked down while being adjacent to a terrible conflict? They could at least let the most vulnerable/sick/injured flee.
  • wahnfrieden 3y ago
    They have prepared and requested to send a large amount of aid through that border which Israel disallowed. As for opening the border for Israel’s request to Nakba the whole population into someone else’s desert…
  • pgeorgi 3y ago
    Egypt prefers dead Palestinians within Gaza over Palestinians living elsewhere and Israel, maybe, controlling the Gaza strip. Al-Sisi, as reported in https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/12/Gazans-must-remain-on-their-land-Egypt-s-Sisi https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/12/Ga...: > But the case of Gazans “is different”, he said, because their displacement would mean “the elimination of the (Palestinian) cause.”
    • stoorafa 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • pgeorgi 3y ago
        > If Palestinians leave Gaza to Egypt, then Egypt will be complicit with Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. But at least it guarantees that there are Palestinians who can seek redress, e.g. at the ICJ. But I suppose when there's the "Palestinian cause", Palestinian lives cease to matter. (let's ignore West Bank for a moment since Al-Sisi and you both did)
      • bluescrn 3y ago
        And if they keep the border shut tight, aren't they complicit in Hamas's use of civilians as human shields?
• megaman821 3y ago
  Taken in isolation there is nothing wrong with this type of reporting, the IDF should be held to high standards. In the context of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, there is a tendency to hold Israel to a much higher standard and excuse the Palestine side as if they were naive children. I don't see how that could possibly set up any lasting peace. Israel will become more deaf to outsiders, and Palestinians will not be entrusted to make decisions for themselves.
  • rich_sasha 3y ago
    I think there is good reason to hold Israel to a higher standard. It is by many metrics one of the most sophisticated states in the whole world. It has one of the highest fractions of people with higher education, it is a highly innovative economy. It is the second largest country of origin for NASDAQ stocks - US being the first one - despite being small by numbers at around 10m people. Whereas the Palestinian territories barely classify as the third world. Similarly, it was awful, but not really surprising when the Taliban were torturing people but it was a shock when the US troops in Afghanistan did so. This isn't an excuse or justification for Hamas. But indeed I think our expectations of Israel should be higher.
    • megaman821 3y ago
      If prisoner well-being was Qatar's concern, it would be best to bring accusations during diplomatic discussions. This is more like Russia Today calling out prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay. I don't think Israelis see Al Jazeera as a neutral player here, and are now less likely to demand better of the IDF.
    • edanm 3y ago
      I completely agree that Israel should be held (and hold itself) to a higher standard than Hamas. I think one thing Israelis... dislike... is that often Israel is held to higher standards than every other country on Earth, is held to impossible standards. And when it falls short of those standards - it is considered proof that Israel is evil.
      • 3y ago
• unhammer 3y ago
  https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/07/middleeast/palestinian-israeli-deaths-gaza-dg/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/07/middleeast/palestinian-is...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
    The Palestinian people and cause has both Muslims and Christians. Most zionists are secular Jewish people. This isn't about religion, but, land.
    • wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Zionism has at the start and to this day major support from Christian institutions as well
    • baz00 3y ago
      Hamas statements have said it's about killing Jews and it being the moral duty of Palestinians to do that and sacrifice their children to the cause. It's religious in at least one direction. It was about land once. I suspect, to throw the exact level of thinking on the table by these people, about as worthy as a meme at this point.
      • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
        Any source for Hamas saying it wants to kill Jews. I read it was in their charter but they removed it ~20 years ago
        • wahnfrieden 3y ago
          You will not find any current or reliable source for this line of propaganda.
          • CloudYeller 3y ago
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund#Hamas_payments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_... https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-member-says-repeat-attacks-065643206.html https://news.yahoo.com/hamas-member-says-repeat-attacks-0656...
• asdadsdad 3y ago
  [flagged]
• TehShrike 3y ago
  The more I read about war the shittier it gets. This sounds like a lot of the others. I keep reading about wars, though. It seems more dangerous to look away.
  • frontman1988 3y ago
    War is hell. Mostly innocents suffering on both sides of the border. And we don't seem to learn, entire human civilization's history is full of war, even peace time is just preparation for the next war.
• iddan 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • enterprise_cog 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
    I always saw it as the Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing for 75+ years with no resolution. It's a conflict that's symbolic of the deep divide of the historical imperial powers and the Global south that suffered from colonialism. I feel this is why people in different continents of the world react so differently to the conflict and why many find it so interesting.
    • lornemalvo 3y ago
      Framing it as some kind of "(post-)colonial" conflict inevitably leads to skewing/biasing the whole analysis and is theoretically flawed.
      • wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Generalized bias aside, is the UN similarly biased specifically in officially classifying Israel as a (colonial) occupying force and the Palestinian population as refugee?
        • 0xDEF 3y ago
          The UN is blatantly biased. There are ~50 Islamic states in the UN that compulsively always vote against Israel. These Islamic states have even made rambling and screaming about Israel a mandatory ceremony (Item 7) at UNHRC sessions.
          • 3y ago
• cjdrake 3y ago
  Slightly related, I wonder what opportunity cost the Israeli tech sector will incur from this conflict. Instead of developing their startups, lots of young people are busy with warfare at the moment.
  • nahumfarchi 3y ago
    The least of our worries at the moment... but honestly, the Israeli tech sector is highly intertwined with the army, so I doubt this will damage it in the long run.
    • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
      How is it intertwined? Startups or big weapons manufacturers?
      • edanm 3y ago
        Israel has brought in 300k reservists. In a country of 9 million, that's a not insignificant percentage of the population. Many of those are part of the tech sector and are currently not working.
        • nahumfarchi 3y ago
          You're assuming that the probability to be drafted is the same for a tech worker as for the rest of the population. I don't know whether that's a valid assumption or not...
          • edanm 3y ago
            I'm not sure of the statistics but this is probably roughly true. Probably higher, actually, as tech workers tend to be more from populations that actually enlist in the military, and tech is a huge sector of the economy.
      • nahumfarchi 3y ago
        Both I think. Weapons manufacturers are the obvious one. But more importantly IMO is that there are a couple of tech units in the army (look up 8200 for example) whose graduates start a lot of startups (frequently skipping university). Some of these startups are arms/cyber related, but not necessarily. It's one big feedback loop really.
• throwaway48r7r 3y ago
  It would be nice if people in the region at least pretended to be working towards peaceful solutions.
  • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
    Hard to do when most of the middle east is run by autocratic regimes that either get military aid from the US or the US is their security guarantor. You have to seem Pro-Palestinian to please the masses but ultimately undermine the cause to please the US
  • tim333 3y ago
    Well I think most people in the region want peace, Israelis included. However if Hamas is dedicated to war the basis of religious beliefs what are you going to do?
    • GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
      How better to respond to a decade's long violent oppression than to start a violent revolt against the conditions?
    • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
      Far right leaders advertise maps of a "greater Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates, that is a huge provocation. Not something a "peace loving" nation would do. Netanyahu presents a map of Israel that includes West Bank and Gaza at a UN speech and you think he "wants peace". Blatant provocations like desecrating religious sites, arresting thousands of Palestinians without charge, limiting water access, allowing and protecting settlers as they kick Palestinians from their homes in West Bank are all provocations. And that's just a short list Massacring hundreds of people in the March of Return in 2018 during a peaceful demonstration is not the act of a "peace loving Israel". You can't stampede into a room, guns blazing and expect people not to respond. There is no peace in the region with the status quo
• ido 3y ago
  Plenty of Palestinians oppose Hamas and want peace and a free Palestinian state according to the '67 borders. These would be the equivalents on the other side.
  • wahnfrieden 3y ago
    I posted this perspective previously ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38071749 ) but it was immediately flagged out: https://libcom.org/article/voices-front-line-against-occupation-interview-palestinian-anarchists https://libcom.org/article/voices-front-line-against-occupat... >I want you to know something else, which is that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas do not represent us, the Palestinian people, at all. We reject authority and we reject Abbas and all his ministers. I do not know whether you have heard of the security coordination agreement between the Zionist occupation and the Palestinian Authority. Years ago, the Palestinian Authority concluded an agreement under which it would serve the occupying entity in terms of security. That is, all the young Palestinian activists who fight the Zionist occupation in one way or another and the occupation cannot arrest them, the Palestinian Authority pursues them, arrests them, and hands them over to the occupation, and then no one knows the fate of that young man or that girl. These do not represent us, nor any other Palestinian. These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America.
    • ZunarJ5 3y ago
      Additional friendly reminder that Bush Jr is responsible for Hamas. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-elected-to-govern-gaza-george-w-bush-2006-palestinian-election.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-electe...
      • hersko 3y ago
        Don't treat the Palestinians like they have no agency...
• Unfrozen0688 3y ago
  Al-Jazeera English operates under the ownership of the Al Jazeera Media Network, which, in turn, is funded by the government of Qatar. Up to you if you trust them or not. I do not. Swedish.
  • thomasfromcdnjs 3y ago
    I've understood that this topic hasn't been allowed to be discussed here, and I think I've preferred that. But this is the first time I've seen a thread allowed, and a bit personally perplexed to see that it's an Al-Jazeera post. Zero trust. Australian.
    • knallfrosch 3y ago
      I agree that it's weird to see the discussion open with this timing (late) and this topic (a weird side-note compared to the terrorist attack and bombin) and this source (state source from Qatar, which is Hamas-friendly.)
      • dang 3y ago
        Re the timing (late): see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38619097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38619097 Re the site, see these explanations I posted earlier today. The short version is that on HN we go by article, not by site. Most media sites are mostly bad (for HN) articles, with occasional good (for HN) ones. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928
• gerash 3y ago
  I don't want to pick sides in this sad generational conflict and I can see each side has their points but I want this parasitic Israel-US relationship to end. AIPAC has worked hard over the years to make any politicians with the slightest opposition to Israel to be unelectable. I don't see how that's ok. They pretty much own the US government at federal and state levels. They have passed laws at the state level where boycotting Israeli goods are now illegal (how is that law even constitutional?) So the first step for ordinary citizens is to make anyone supported by AIPAC unelectable. The billions of dollars / year of aid to Israel, Egypt, etc. that could be spent domestically instead also needs to be cut.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• xyzelement 3y ago
  I have mixed feelings about this topic appearing on HN as I feel like folks are entrenched one way or the other and information isn't going to sway anyone. If this were a discussion we want to have here, this feels like a very bad article as by it's nature it's a one-sided subjective narrative with very little light to shed on the depth of the conflict. An interesting differentiator left unsaid in this article is that Israel released these guys upon investigation which by wartime standards is good behavior (in contrast to hostages kidnapped and held by Hamas still) A thing that makes this conflict difficult to talk about is that the prevalence of coverage makes so many people take sides, while the depth of their understanding is basically just hearing the repetition of a word and applying the emotion of that word to the conflict. For example people hear "genocide in Gaza" and their opinion is simple: genocide is bad. It takes a little digging that most people don't bother to realize the population of Gaza has continued to grow exponentially [1] which is basically the opposite of genocide. Sometimes reading about this conflict feels like seeing someone outraged at an oncologist because of what the radiation treatment is doing to a patient. Yes its bad, yes it's hurting them, but you can't really make sense of that unless you understand cancer and the greater danger that necessitates this kind of response. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/gaza-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/gaza-populati...
  • mbs159 3y ago
    > It takes a little digging that most people don't bother to realize the population of Gaza has continued to grow exponentially [1] which is basically the opposite of genocide. This is a very common and unfortunately completely irrelevant point that the far-right mentions when somebody brings up the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and does not show any "depth of understanding". By no internationally recognized definition of genocide is general population size considered. Something can be considered genocide even if the population grows in the end. You portray a extremely obvious pro-Israel bias in this topic while thinking that you have a more nuanced opinion than others. Please stop misleading others.
  • makeworld 3y ago
    [flagged]
• szundi 3y ago
  [flagged]
• notcivilians 3y ago
  [flagged]
• digitalsin 3y ago
  Al Jazeera on the front of HN? Is Alex Jones and Enquirer coming up next?
  • dang 3y ago
    There have been many posts from that domain on HN over the years. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=points%3E20%20aljazeera.com&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... It's not one of the primary media sites here but it has its place. That doesn't mean that everything there is true or good (for HN). For more explanation on this point, see these comments I posted earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928
• axus 3y ago
  My impression is that leaders of both militaries have a goal to remove the civilians of the other side from the borders of Israel, permanently.
  • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
    When you consider Netanyahu, for years, propped up and funded Hamas, it makes everything more confusing to understand https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
    • marcell 3y ago
      FTA: > Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products. > > Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm. It sounds like an effort to make Hamas and Gaza peaceful neighbors and normalize the situation. Didn’t work out.
      • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
        I understand the benefit extra work permits would've brought to Gaza's economy but removing the blockade would do a lot more to help Gaza's economy. Work permits are just a bandaid over a much wider occupation.
        • neoromantique 3y ago
          The blockade didn't originate from some Israeli hatred towards Gaza, it had very clear and objective reasons, so far we only see confirmations of why it was necessary.
          • kamikazeturtles 3y ago
• roynasser 3y ago
  [flagged]
• davesque 3y ago
  It's really disappointing to see so many exceptions to the no politics rule right when we need that rule the most. There really isn't anything to be gained by discussing stories like this. We all know that atrocities are taking place. It's a war zone. A̶l̶s̶o̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶̶g̶l̶a̶r̶i̶n̶g̶l̶y̶̶ ̶b̶a̶d̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶i̶r̶c̶u̶m̶v̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ ̶r̶u̶l̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶i̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶P̶G̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶s̶u̶e̶.̶ Update: Actually, I went back and took a closer look at the couple examples I thought supported my argument that PG had some kind of bias on the issue. On second glance, I don't feel like I can honestly claim that he does. Perhaps he does, but I don't have any evidence on hand to support it. I don't want to be adding to the confusion here so I'm going to have to walk back that claim. However, I still don't feel like this topic really belongs on HN. It's a tragedy all around and very important on the world stage. But it seems like there are too many groups that have an interest in steering the conversation one way or another for reasons that have nothing to do with the rights of the victims.
  • beeboobaa 3y ago
    What's that supposed bias?
    • davesque 3y ago
      You know what? I went searching just now for examples that I thought could support my argument. But I honestly couldn't find any that really seemed unambiguous or like they couldn't be interpreted in another way. And the ones I had in mind didn't seem like they clearly were arguing for one side of things when I looked at them a second time. So yeah...going to have to walk that particular claim back it seems. But I still don't think we really should be discussing the topic on HN. Seems too fraught to really get any value out of it.
      • dang 3y ago
        I didn't see this comment until now, and tmnvix already said it, but I'd like to add some appreciation. It's dismayingly rare to see someone check their view against the data, change their mind, and say so. I guess it's not hard to understand why that is, but it's worth celebrating when someone goes the other way. I wish more of us would.
• blaufast 3y ago
  I suspect a very large number of people are too smart to speak up, but also resentful of the forces that work to prevent actual nuanced dialogue. That's certainly the sentiment in my bubble. As somebody who isn't fond of the idea of an ethnostate and sees atrocities coming from all of the actors here, I don't feel comfortable speaking up due to the lack of nuance in public forums.
  • vacuity 3y ago
    I hear you. While reading your comment, I had the thought "'atrocities coming from all of the actors'? Are you saying they're equally bad?" Of course, that's not what you said and there are far better responses if one is concerned about debating the relative moral standings of Israel and Hamas. It was more of a kneejerk reaction, and I quickly dismissed that from rational consideration, but the fact that I thought it nonetheless (and, in a different world, just replied with that) is a bit unsettling. Especially when we can't be certain what's a truth or lie when it comes to coverage of this conflict, it's far too easy to lose sight of the nuance.
    • smashah 3y ago
      On a scale of 1-10, how nuanced is an Israeli Extermination Force executing a holocaust upon the prisoners of the Gaza concentration camp?
      • vacuity 3y ago
        While I don't deny many of the atrocities that the Israeli government seems to be doing, it's only part of what's going on. I support Israel withdrawing from Gaza (aside from providing aid) and focusing on actual defense, but Hamas will still be active. There's also more work that has to be done in both Israel and Gaza. It's not just a one-and-done situation that's as simple as "hey Israel, stop doing the bad thing".
        • smashah 3y ago
          Yes there should be a more substantial ask and price to pay for committing a Holocaust, just as Nazi Germany was dismantled, we in tech should be demanding of a ceasefire AND the dismantling of the Holocausting state of Israel.
• xchip 3y ago
  Thanks to HN for not banning this topic.
• l3mure 3y ago
  > The bombing of power targets, according to intelligence sources who had first-hand experience with its application in Gaza in the past, is mainly intended to harm Palestinian civil society: to “create a shock” that, among other things, will reverberate powerfully and “lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas,” as one source put it. > Several of the sources, who spoke to +972 and Local Call on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes — which stipulate the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target. This number is calculated and known in advance to the army’s intelligence units, who also know shortly before carrying out an attack roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed. > In one case discussed by the sources, the Israeli military command knowingly approved the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in an attempt to assassinate a single top Hamas military commander. “The numbers increased from dozens of civilian deaths [permitted] as collateral damage as part of an attack on a senior official in previous operations, to hundreds of civilian deaths as collateral damage,” said one source. > “Nothing happens by accident,” said another source. “When a 3-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it’s because someone in the army decided it wasn’t a big deal for her to be killed — that it was a price worth paying in order to hit [another] target. We are not Hamas. These are not random rockets. Everything is intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home.” > According to the investigation, another reason for the large number of targets, and the extensive harm to civilian life in Gaza, is the widespread use of a system called “Habsora” (“The Gospel”), which is largely built on artificial intelligence and can “generate” targets almost automatically at a rate that far exceeds what was previously possible. This AI system, as described by a former intelligence officer, essentially facilitates a “mass assassination factory.” https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
  • fathyb 3y ago
    > a system called “Habsora” (“The Gospel”), which is largely built on artificial intelligence and can “generate” targets almost automatically Do we have any example of popular open-source software with a license that restricts military usage?
• xchip 3y ago
  Glad to see so many civil and enriching conversations, you are an example to the internet on how to have respectful and productive discussions on controversial topics. Thanks.
• dwbehappy 3y ago
  [dead]
• theonething 3y ago
  Voices from the other side: https://www.october7.org/ https://www.october7.org/
  • aluminum96 3y ago
    [flagged]
• xg15 3y ago
  I don't want to start another top-level thread on this topic, as it is contentious enough already - but just as an aside, the UN General Assembly just passed a (symbolic) resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire with 153 to 10, an even stronger majority than the last resolution. Of course UN votes are always subject to all kinds of political considerations and power dynamics and the saying "nations have no friends, only interests" still applies, but when such a wide range of countries from completely different geopolitical alignments vote for this (e.g. pro-palestinian but strongly anti-Hamas Egypt together with hosts of Hamas Turkey, Qatar and Iran, together with pro-Israel western countries such as France and Switzerland), this does give a strong hint how the world opinion on the matter seems to be. News bulletin: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144717 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144717 Votes by nation: https://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre/status/1734686801699491975/photo/1 https://twitter.com/UN_News_Centre/status/173468680169949197...
  • nvm0n2 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • xg15 3y ago
      > The UN doesn't speak for the world, regardless of what they may claim. That might be true for Guterres but not for the GA. The delegations that voted were not directed by the UN but by their respective countries. No one forced them to vote for this. Israel itself gets its legitimacy from the UN resolution in 1949. > But why would anyone ask them to cease fire against an enemy that won't return the favour? My understanding of the term "ceasefire" is that it always applies to both sides - so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well.
      • ashirusnw 3y ago
        > so of course during such a ceasefire Hamas would have to stop the rocket attacks as well During which Hamas would regroup, recover, and then be impossible to defeat and then would go on to commit another October 7th What should in fact happen is another humanitarian pause allowing more hostages to be released but relief for civilians in conflict. Hamas is now demanding all Palestinian prisoners, i.e. those who have committed attrocities in the past to be released which will never happen as it would incentivize further attacks against Israelis
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  If they're being tortured that's a real problem I'd hope is investigated but at the same time, suicide bombers are a thing. I see no issue with being asked to strip. Having served in Afghanistan it is blatantly obvious that most of HN doesn't have the faintest idea what war is like and how a terrorist insurgency fights.
• stainablesteel 3y ago
  i've not heard from anyone on the anti-israeli side what israel should have done after 10/7 other than "leave" its just such a confusing discussion, what kind of retaliation would someone of that mindset find appropriate for those 1000+ killed/tortured/raped from the initial attack? i can't find any steelmanned positions of this
  • merpnderp 3y ago
    And people seem to ignore Israel's stated goal. They no longer find it possible to live next to Hamas and are fighting a war of unconditional surrender and occupation. So it is confusing when people claim Israel has far surpassed any proportional response as Israel was never attempting tit-for-tat, but unconditional surrender.
• michaeltimo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    It looks like you've been using HN primarily for this one cause. That's not allowed on this site, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. We have to ban accounts that do this, and I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
• aluminum96 3y ago
  Al Jazeera is an exceptionally disreputable source for coverage on this particular issue. It's not just their primary source of funding -- the Qatari state -- but also their abhorrent track record of running stories with no factual basis (such as in the wake of the Al-Ahli incident). I can't point to anything specifically incorrect about this reporting. But you have to take a lot of primary-source-based reporting on faith, and why would I trust a source that has such a non-neutral track record? We'd all be better served by sticking to sources that don't have obvious conflicts of interest. Edit: I want to be clear that I don't have any specific evidence that the article contains falsehoods, and I'm not excusing any of the conduct alleged in the article. I just think Al Jazeera is a terrible way to start a constructive discussion, given its reputation.
  • epgui 3y ago
    > I can't point to anything specifically incorrect about this reporting. Then your comment is a genetic fallacy. You're highlighting a potential motive or potential for bias, but without anything substantive to say.
    • aluminum96 3y ago
      I absolutely said something substantive. But I'll make it even more explicit: Al Jazeera has an untrustworthy track record, and their unverifiable primary-source reporting should not be assumed impartial. This is only the "genetic fallacy" if you assume that the trustworthiness of Al Jazeera articles is uncorrelated. My entire argument is that this publication is systematically not impartial, and wants to convince you of a particular (Pro-Palestinian) position.
  • dang 3y ago
    On HN, we've always gone by article quality, not site quality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... Having a HN thread about an article does not imply endorsement of everything, or even anything, on the site. In my experience, it's a mistake to make reliability judgements about major sources (such as news organizations) at site scope. To pick an unrelated example, we often get criticisms when HN has a thread about a Daily Mail link, but occasionally a good (for HN) article does appear there; and of course many bad (for HN) articles appear there too. If you don't like that example, substitute any other major source—they all have a mixture of good and bad articles, good and bad information. It's therefore important to make finer-grained distinctions about these things—e.g. article scope rather than site scope. This is one of those cases where it's super helpful to have a single principle that one is optimizing for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... – the moderation strategy I just outlined is derived from it.
• FergusArgyll 3y ago
  [flagged]
• nomdep 3y ago
  @dang This article might be “interesting” but so is porn. And both are off-topic, and not about satisfying our intellectual curiosity
  • awesomeMilou 3y ago
    The technical difficulties in digital porn distribution at least offer some points of on-topic discussion.
    • jiggawatts 3y ago
      I personally would be curious to find out why that entire industry is on the cutting edge of technology in many respects, such as 4K, 3D, and VR but has completely avoided HDR? Meanwhile Hollywood and streaming companies like Netflix have embraced HDR, but ignored VR, dropped 3D, and still often doing special effects in 2K!
  • dang 3y ago
    That's a pretty awful comparison, but let me point you to some explanations of why this article spent time on HN's front page today, and in what sense the words "interesting" and "curious" apply to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618804 If you read those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be interested to hear what it is.
• rq1 3y ago
  One should read (again?) Hannah Arendt and the mechanics of dehumanisation and propaganda in genocides. Beyond the dehumanisation of the victims by the perpetrators, one should not dehumanise the latter in response. There were no monsters. She was recalling that, it was ordinary men killing ordinary men, and ordinary men being killed by ordinary men. And one of these ordinary men could have been your neighbour, or yourself.
  • dang 3y ago
    She was too far ahead of the rest of us. The idea of not dehumanizing the perpetrators is a long way away from mass acceptance.
• rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • monocasa 3y ago
    > Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity. Which in the context of the cited request for 1967 borders and right of return, could read to be an additional call for the right of return of Palestinians to the lands within the Israeli side of the 1967 borders.
  • AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • selimthegrim 3y ago
    I suppose we’re going to take Dan, Beersheba, Gath and Ashkelon out of the Bible now In 637 the non-urban population of Palestine (incl. Galilee) was still majority Jewish - Justinian had only turfed them out of Jerusalem. There was no genocide in 637. Furthermore, no one elected Hamas as the restoration of the caliphate and spokesperson for entire Muslim world. They’re actually not Isis.
    • rayiner 3y ago
      I didn’t say there was a genocide in 637. But they took over the land, just like they took over large parts of the subcontinent. And it’s whiney for them to act like the victims now. It’s like if Mexico somehow took back Texas and California. How much could we really complain?
      • selimthegrim 3y ago
        In Sindh the Buddhists weren't all ill-disposed to them. I know less about Bengal.
• nla 3y ago
  What is this doing on HN? Keep politics off HN please/
  • dang 3y ago
    I attempted to answer this in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617223 Re politics on HN: see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... and if you still have a question I haven't already answered there, I'd be interested to know what it is.
• kossTKR 3y ago
  Let me know if i’m reading the sources at the bottom wrong. Israel supported Hamas as a tactic to destroy their neighbours without restraint as classical war strategy called divide and conquer as most history or war nerds know it. It's unsurprising classical geopolitics as known from academia 25 years ago before 9/11. This is an important aspect when people support the measures, the 6000+ bombed kids or that palestinians just voted for them with other options. In reality the Hamas support, blockades, and forced poverty in Gaza were part of a military plan to create desperation, hellish conditions and radicalisation from constant oppression to eventually weaken or annex depending on sources. This has been known for long internally in the Israeli press, even mentioned in Wall Street Journal and other mainstream media in the past then called "conspiracy", before again surfacing today with the NYT articles. Examples below with lots of sources: The New York Times (today): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... Wall Street Journal (2008/2023): https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.... https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-gaza-humanitarian-aid-diverted-cf356c48 https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-gaza-humanitaria... The Intercept (2018): https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c... Haaretz (2023): https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-op...
• djakaitis 3y ago
  Why is this on hacker news?
  • dang 3y ago
    I attempted to answer this in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617223
• neonsunset 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    Please don't post like this here. It's against the site guidelines, especially on a topic this fraught. "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • neonsunset 3y ago
      [flagged]
• aluminum96 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • jraby3 3y ago
    [flagged]
• _HMCB_ 3y ago
  Heartbreaking story. Truly heartbreaking. “It does not belong to man to direct his own step.”
• ac130kz 3y ago
  Sorry, but I can only laugh at Aljazeera, an outlet from Qatar, and Qatar is the main sponsor of Hamas terrorists. It's something close to "crocodile tears", when they show these "tortures" after saluting beheadings of Israelis. If they want to destroy Israel and do ethnic cleansing, why do they keep complaining about being bombed and detained.
  • capr 3y ago
    Wait, I thought Israel is the main sponsor of Hamas. These guys should get public so we can get a shareholder list.
  • keefle 3y ago
    They are the main channel operating from Gaza, and their reputation is better than many western media channels, especially when it comes to this conflict. We wouldn't have seen many of the atrocities committed live by the IDF if it weren't for them. In addition what they are claiming matches with previously known habits of the IDF, matches with deaths of Palestinian hostages that occurred in Israeli jails, so its not that unimaginable
    • underdeserver 3y ago
      Their reputation is terrible. They've picked a side, long ago, and have been continuously working PR for it.
• junofan 3y ago
  > it's important to me to remind people that the US destroyed Iraq in response to 9/11 That is not true. I remember Bush’s address: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030319-17.html https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/new... I would say that US military doctrine has successfully created the most peaceful era in human history as measured by mortality rate due to conflict, and a fundamental part of that is the willingness to confront adversaries with overwhelming force. The alternative is generations of tribal conflicts. Coming from a family with many war deaths over the past several hundred years, I’m thankful the violence ended with my generation.
  • NotSammyHagar 3y ago
    The military doctrine, plans, aims we talked about publicly were unfortunately quite different from the reality of what happened. I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing - I'm talking about the unnecessary and unjustified invasion of Iraq. Yes there hasn't been a world war - but in Iraq there are continuing tribal conflicts. We didn't create an era of peace there. This article says 300k civilians died in the immediate wartime, more died in the aftermath. For example, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/20/iraq-broken-united-states-invasion-20/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/20/iraq-broken-...: With little doubt, the United States broke Iraq. U.S. forces succeeded in the campaign to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein... But what followed turned into a debacle for U.S. grand strategy, and a traumatic nightmare for much of Iraqi society. The war, driven by the hubris of the Bush administration and a supportive Washington establishment — as well as what has to be described at this point as a vengeful post-9/11 bloodlust that permeated American society — is now widely seen as a generational American mistake. ... According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, many of the 306,000 estimated deaths in the Iraq war were of civilians killed by “direct war related violence” between 2003 and 2019, a span of time that saw Iraq convulsed by waves of insurgencies and counterinsurgencies, and its cities ravaged by terrorist attacks and airstrikes. The consensus now, even among formerly hawkish Republicans, is that the United States should never have invaded Iraq 20 years ago. ... “Iraq quickly fell prey to chaos, conflict and instability, experienced an uncountable number of deaths and displacements, and the erosion of health, education and basic services,” wrote Iraqi academic Balsam Mustafa. “Behind the statistics, there are untold stories of agony and suffering. The structural and political violence would spill into social and domestic violence, affecting women and children. With every life lost, a whole family is shattered. From day one, the conditions were forming for the emergence of terrorist groups and militias.”
• tibbydudeza 3y ago
  I pity both sides. Wonder what the end game is going to be with this conflict - two state is dead afaik and definitely a single state solution is off the cards due to demographics and fear of the Jewish people. The best scenario would be that Gaza is incorporated into Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. Removing Hamas will simply bring about a worse player like ISIS to the fore.
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  People calling themselves civilized do in 21st century what nazis did in 20th century. Such a sad moment for humanity.
• wastewastewaste 3y ago
  damn that's crazy Al jazeera would say that
• xkcd1963 3y ago
  Yea there is no surprise that those traumatized people will seek revenge in their later years I'd do the same. The cycle of violence continues
• jonathanstrange 3y ago
  Flagging this submission should lead to its removal. I'm very disappointed that HN allows political topics now. It's well-known that discussion of one-sided articles like this one doesn't lead to good discussions. It's clearly political, and, even worse, based on a one-sided submission pointing to Al Jazeera, which is driven by ideology and known for publishing way more radical articles in Arabic than in English. The best thing is to remove the whole submission. In the absence of removing the thread, I feel morally obliged to represent the other side. According to a recent survey in the West Bank around 80% of all Palestinians in the West Bank support the October 7 attacks.[1] This may explain why the IDF is not always friendly towards Gaza prisoners and by default assumes they're Hamas members or sympathizers. [1] https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20...
  • magic123_ 3y ago
    So the logic here is, because 80% of a population living in an open air prison for several decades support attacks on the people oppressing them, they deserve to be tortured?
    • jonathanstrange 3y ago
      What a weird way to misinterpret what I've stated. Of course, I'm against torturing people, even if they support burning whole families alive, kidnapping children and elderly, raping women, shooting parents in front of their children, etc.
      • magic123_ 3y ago
        Ironic that you describe what's been going on in gaza for years.
  • wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Politics threads are common here and allowed. I see several right now on the front page.
• fennecfoxy 3y ago
  This sort of thing is a commonplace occurrence: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-..., additionally only men being legally required to remain in Ukraine, drafted, etc. Usually it's only men who are systematically tortured/killed when Russian soldiers enter Ukrainian villages. Of course women are at risk of being raped, but so are men - and things so much worse than rape. But the worst thing is that because of the way that men are still positioned within society, we're both targeted for these things, but are also refused any support/understanding when it does happen.
• vinni2 3y ago
  Why is this being discussed in Hackernews?
• arp242 3y ago
  Both Jews and Palestinian have legitimate grievances, going back over a hundred years, and they are so numerous that it seems pointless to enumerate them here. And these grievances have consistently been used by both sides to trivialize of deny the grievances of the other side. Its is the ultimate Oppression Olympics. The problems are also much deeper than just "Netanyahu and Hamas". Not only does Netanyahu keep getting re-elected, these ultra hard-right Religious Zionist people have also gained quite a lot of ground, and these people are utterly bonkers, having expressed views that are nothing short of genocidal (even before the current war). And at the same time Hamas also has fairly wide-spread support among the people of Gaza, and Hamas has also expressed views that are nothing short of genocidal. In short, it's a cultural problem, not a "Netanyahu and Hamas"-problem. Conflicts like this ends when people get tired of the violence and stop caring about who did what to who, and just want it to stop. This is why the Good Friday Accords in Northern Ireland have held, in spite of some opposition, as well as lingering grievances and even outright hatred, from both sides. I'm not seeing this willingness here. The last time this was really present was the 90s, a hopeful period in general, and the Oslo accords between Rabin and Arafat seemed to be the start of the end of the conflict. It was not to be, and things didn't end well for either men: one got murdered by one of his own religious nutjobs and the other eventually got side-tracked by his own religious nutjobs, and things have only gotten worse since then. I'm not hopeful for a resolution any time soon. Solutions for fundamental problems like "Gaza has been an open air prison for 15 years and we need to do something with these people" are barely being asked, and even the question itself is met with hostility by some. Maybe someone still has a savegame from a few decades ago and we can try again? That seems the most plausible solution.
• Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
• Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
• YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  If we're gonna have a curious conversation I must say that I don't understand the distinction between civlians and non-civilians (combatants?). Isn't the whole point of war to kill the enemy's civilians and destroy their infrastructure, so that their nation can't support a standing army to defend whatever natural resources the attacker wants in the first place? I wonder if there is any example from history, modern and not, where an invading army simply disabled the inveded nation's standing army and then just ... turned around left. Or if there is any example where a nation was occupied and the civilian population did _not_ take arms, meaning that at least some of the civilians turned into combatants. In the end, I don't get the logic of giving different status to civilians and combatants, in war. If it's illegal to kill enemy civilians, then it should be illegal to kill enemy combatants, too. After all, why should we value the combatants' lives less? Of course, making it illegal to kill enemy combatants would effectively make war illegal. Well, yes. I can't see how war can still be legal in the current stage of our civilisation. I don't understand how we can still accept that some of us will kill others, destroy their homes and take their stuff. I don't understand how that can be seen as ethical, let alone legal. "Dispense with the war, learn from the past" - Sodom, Ausgebombt.
  • throwaway282958 3y ago
    > In the end, I don't get the logic of giving different status to civilians and combatants The morale of the fighting force is a big reason. Most people have souls. Most people fighting in modern offensive wars are not doing so by choice. Can you not imagine yourself being conscripted and forced to fight in a war? Do you seriously believe that in that position, you would not distinguish between an enemy combatant with a weapon and a parent fleeing with their child?
  • vacuity 3y ago
    There is some point at which a nation's "self-defense" is pertinent, although in reality that self is both composed of many people and nebulous to reason about. If people unjustly attack, it's not like saying "Hey! Stop violating international law!" is going to work. Of course, the supposed good actors should try their best to not cause war (in this case, Israel is not so innocent), but if war arrives unbidden on your doorstep, don't let them destroy your house and kill you.
• Agraillo 3y ago
  Mosab Hassan Yousef [1] in his book "Son of Hamas" described what it was like to be in Moscobiyeh [2]. "I have been sitting on this chair for three weeks," he said finally. "They let me sleep for four hours every week." I was stunned. That was the last thing I wanted to hear. Another man told me he had been arrested about the same time I was. I guessed there were about twenty of us in the room. Our talking was suddenly interrupted when someone struck me in the back of the head-hard. Pain shot through my skull, forcing me to blink back tears inside the hood. "No talking!" a guard shouted. ( you can find this text with the search https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22I+have+been+sitting+on+this+chair+for+three+weeks%2C%22 https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22I+have+been+sitti... ) After reading the book and about him in other places, I think he is very unlikely source of fakes. I think that any nation might be in a state when it is semi-aware of such practices. It's when on those allegations many reply not by questioning them, but by telling how bad the other side is. In many cases after cooling off, the nation might start questions about questionable practices. The problem with Israel is that the country in in permanent state of war and I suspect (correct me) that many citizens are really semi-aware of all of this. I just hope that the moment when the questions are asked will come. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovia_Detention_Centre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovia_Detention_Centre