5 ms·

You seem to be arguing from a bizarre perspective that Israel is the defender here. In reality, Israel is the aggressor, and Palestine is the state that has bee

You seem to be arguing from a bizarre perspective that Israel is the defender here. In reality, Israel is the aggressor, and Palestine is the state that has been under occupation and illegal blockade for decades. October 7th was an (illegal, abhorrent and criminal!) act of retaliation against previous Israeli aggressions, not an unprovoked attack. If Ukraine were to bomb a Russian city during the current war, no one would views it as legitimate for Russia to bomb a Ukrainian city back: Russia started the whole conflict and is expected to bear the consequences, until such a time as it stops the occupation. In general, the overall solution would be for Israel to allow Palestine to be an independent state, recognized in the UN, with full control of its own borders. It is fully within its rights to keep its border with Gaza closed, of course, but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea. There is also a good argument to be made for paying reparations to Palestine for the occupied territories and for the entire illegal blockade duration - though that is ultimately secondary. The thornier question is of course how to connect Gaza to the West Bank.

__blockcipher__ 3y ago
> but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea This by the way is an important fact to bring up when the claim that "Israel left Gaza many years ago and the problem didn't improve". In actuality, they withdrew their occupying army but still kept up a blockade, including a literal cap to the number of calories allowed to enter the country, which I can only interpret as a population control measure. That's of course in addition to all the other stuff they kept doing, but that's probably a discussion for another day. I'd note that the GP was careful to specifically mention Israel having withdrawn its military from Gaza which is true, so I'm not disputing the veracity of their claim on that specifically.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- h3rsko 3y ago
  Israels next door neighbor calls for its total destruction and routinely launches rockets at its cities. In what world would they not blockade them?
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Did the UK blockade Ireland when the IRA was routinely conducting terror attacks in Northern Ireland? Did Spain institute controls on the amount of calories that could be imported into its Basque region when the separatists there were routinely committing acts of terror? Some behaviors are simply unacceptable - and the current blockade has been found to be illegal by the UN time and time again, or at least would have been without US vetos.
    - neoromantique 3y ago
      UN has proved itself to be severely biased towards Israel time and time again, so referring to it as some sort of source is weird.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        In this context the UN is simply the governing body of international law. It holds no mechanism of enforcement and is wowed to non-interference and impartiality. When the UN finds a blockade illegal it simply means that it violates the international laws it self has set. You can think of this like a supreme court ruling inside your own jurisdiction, just between states as opposed to people. There is no bias here, just law and interpretations on these laws. If this were the security council that would be another issue however.
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        Criticizing Israel doing ethnic cleansing and war crimes stuff is not the same as being "severely biased".
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      The IRA was a terrorist group, not the official government of Ireland. During WW2 the Allies did in fact blockade Germany. The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
- nahumfarchi 3y ago
  That is a weird tangent to take. The population size in Gaza nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching approximately 2 million (). If the sea blockade is a population control measure, it's a highly ineffective one. Did ever you stop to consider that it's, maybe, I don't know, to stop them from bringing in stuff to shoot at us? () https://www.ft.com/content/7b618433-ba5f-4e92-a3e0-d5d41d6d17f8 https://www.ft.com/content/7b618433-ba5f-4e92-a3e0-d5d41d6d1...
  - __blockcipher__ 3y ago
    I'm amazed that you avoided addressing the specific fact that they quite literally cap the number of calories allowed to come into the Gaza Strip. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-counted-calories-needed-for-gazans-in-blockade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-c... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/israeli-military-calorie-limit-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/israeli-milita...
    - nahumfarchi 3y ago
      And you're ignoring the fact that our neighbors are hostile towards us and share a border with another country.
- ashirusnw 3y ago
  The "blockade" was Israel protecting its borders once Hamas seized control. And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt. For much of the time, Israel allowed goods through the tough restrictions on what types of materials were allowed in started once Hamas started tunneling into Israel to commit attacks. Very recently, Israel increased significantly the number of work permits for Gazans to work in Israel in the mistaken belief that Hamas and Gazans were getting comfortable with improved economy and this would gradually lead to deradicalisation and eventual peace. The other estimated the humanity of Hamas who it turns out were actually planning barbarism.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt. The fact that Israel has an agreement with Egypt governing that border crossing and preventing imports other than as approved by Israel undermines the "its not a blockade because one border touches Egypt" argument.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If Ukraine were to bomb a Russian city during the current war, no one would views it as legitimate for Russia to bomb a Ukrainian city back If Kyiv went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a rave, their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat. Had Hamas hit military installations (demonstrating Israeli impotency) and taken hostages, but treated them well (taking the moral high ground as images of Nonna being served tea and falafel are juxtaposed with those of aerial bombardment), our conversation right now would be very different. You're broadly right. One component of the solution must be an independent Gaza (if not Palestinian state). Another has to be reparations for the Nakba. Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K. and possibly French. (Reparations for the blockade are needlessly divisive. Israel can always argue, legitimately, I believe, that it was Palestine's Arab allies who repeatedly attacked it first.)
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > If Ukraine went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a group of kids partying, I'm pretty sure their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia, in some sense, would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat. That is an interesting thought experiment in itself. I'd like to believe you are right, but then I remember that there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated. There was also little interest to determine if Ukraine may have been behind the destruction of the dam that killed many innocent civilians. So, I'm not entirely sure how European and US opinion would have oriented. > Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K.--they are the ones who took the land and gave it to another That is a good point, and I'm pretty sure other European states would have quite a bit to attone for to help set this right.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated Massive difference between targeted killing and broad slaughter. To put this on the other shoe, it's why we were never going to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan or Vietnam.
Invictus0 3y ago
Is there any reason to believe that a Palestinian state with full control of its borders would not immediately begin the process of accumulating weapons to repeat Oct 7? Hamas has never affirmed Israel's right to exist.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Treaties and UN involvement could be arranged to help guarantee this. However, what is clear is that Israel's current approach is not working to ensure its security, and that in the last few decades it has only succeeded in turning the population of Palestine ever more bitter against them. So, unless they are prepared to wipe them out entirely, what possible hope is there in continuing in this direction? Say Hamas is successfully eliminated. Every single Hamas leader and soldier is killed or captured. Is there any reason whatsoever to imagine that people in Gaza could return to their bulldozed and bombed "homes" and feel friendly towards Israel? Or did this incursion all but guarantee that the next generation of Gazans will feel even more justified in defying Israel? And note, the same question is true of Hamas' monstrous attack - no doubt the vast majority of those hurt by the Hamas attack will feel justified in hating and fearing Gaza and Hamas. It's just harder to ask the ones being oppressed to just bear with it in the hope their oppressor might stop.
  - neoromantique 3y ago
    >Treaties and UN involvement UN has assisted Hamas in the past, there is no reason to believe it would be any different this time. The history didn't start on October 7th, what has happened on October 7th is the violence went over the threshold in which Israel would believe intent of international community and instead is handling it themselves despite the uproar.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      The history before October 7th is generally that for every Israeli civilian killed by Palestinian terror attacks, there have been 2-5 Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers or police, at least in the last 20 years or so. Even the monstrous Hamas attacks from October 7th don't reverse the death toll comparison (and that's before the invasion). So, if anything, a more accurate description is that October 7th was a boiling point where Palestine retaliated for decades of oppressive killings. But the reality is that neither is the right framing. The October 7th attacks on innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. The following invasion and widespread murder of innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. A ceasefire and peace deals must be imposed to keep the situation under control. All those who have caused the death of civilians, both in Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership, should face international justice, and new leaders should be installed that are committed to a lasting peace process.
ashirusnw 3y ago
Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, dismantling is own Israeli settlements despite massive protests by the seller movements, and only imposing a blockade once a terrorist group took absolute control (and threw Gays and Fatah opponents off rooftops to their deaths) Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt).
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, Israel didn't disengage entirely from Gaza, it maintains a murder zone inside Gaza, and has murdered unarmed peaceful protestors in Gaza within that murder zone.
  - js212 3y ago
    “Protestors” Who were trying to get over the border into Israel? Look what happened when civilians got into Israel on 10/7. Were they also “peaceful”?
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt). Gaza has sea access, but Israel doesn't allow any ship to dock into Gaza or leave Gaza - this is blockading Gaza's own sea borders, not closing Israel's. Egypt's border with Gaza is also controlled by Israel through a treaty - Egypt can't unilaterally open its border to Gaza without breaking its treaties with Israel.
- hbt 3y ago
  [flagged]
nahumfarchi 3y ago
In this certain case, it is. The aggressions (during this round) started on October 7th by Hamas. You can replace "defense" with "response" / "retaliation" / or "zionist agressions" if you're reading certain news sources. I will admit that the my background affected my word choice to some extent. The history of this conflict is a lot more complex than the occupier/ occupied framing would imply. For one, there was a Jewish presence here for centuries, not to mention the ancient kingdom of Judea. But I find these discussions unconstructive usually since they seem to get into these "he hit me first" kind of arguments. I agree that a two state solution is what we should be striving for. Humans are creative, if the will was there, we would find a way to connect Gaza and the West Bank (tunnel/bridge/whatever), do some territory swaps as needed, divide Jerusalem, etc. The plans for this exist, it's the leadership that's failing (on both sides).
s1artibartfast 3y ago
>In general, the overall solution would be for Israel to allow Palestine to be an independent state, recognized in the UN, with full control of its own borders. What would be the solution of that independent state went to war and attacked Israel again? Would you agree at that juncture that Israel would be within its rights to destroy and conquer that state?
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  No, there is no allowance in international law for conquering and destroying a state. If you are attacked by a different state, you obviously have the full right to defend yourself and destroy the military installations used to attack you. You have a right to attack back and seek regime change and impose terms that ensure another attack can't happen, and even seek reparations. But you do not have the right to attack the civilian population or to take their land. Even if you think they were for the war. The allies didn't conquer and destroy Japan or Germany. They didn't divide their territories among themselves (even the separation of Germany still left two sovereign states). We have also learned from the end of WW1 and WW2 that investing into the old enemy state to make it happy and successful is in fact a MUCH better solution for lasting peace than pounding them into submission and trying to sap their economy. If Israel had sought a Marshall-plan like solution for Gaza after the Yom-Kippur war instead of a military occupation for the following 30 years, perhaps Hamas wouldn't have won the 2005 elections in the first place.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think the compairison to Japan and Germany is interesting, although there are obvious differences. Both Japan and Germany had major civil cities leveled and gave unconditional surrender in WWII, and were occupied. Germany was stripped of its sovereignty and former statehood. It was administered by the allies for 5 years and permanently lost 25% of its territory (compared to its 1937 pre-war borders.) It took 25 years post WWII for Germany to be admitted to the UN. Japan was Occupied and administered by US military for 7 years following the war, and parts of the Japanese home islands are still administered 70 years later. Japan Lost multiple territories it had held for more than 60 years before WWII started. I think that what we learned from WWII and subsequent wars that you need unconditional surrender and acceptance for any real nation building to take place. Perhaps Palestine needs their equivalent to Germany's first post-war chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who accepted that Germany lost, and was willing look forward and not back.
dang 3y ago
> You seem to be arguing from a bizarre perspective This sort of swipe is against the spirit of the HN guidelines and particularly the spirit we asked commenters in this thread to keep. Please don't do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

__blockcipher__ 3y ago

> but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea This by the way is an important fact to bring up when the claim that "Israel left Gaza many years ago and the problem didn't improve". In actuality, they withdrew their occupying army but still kept up a blockade, including a literal cap to the number of calories allowed to enter the country, which I can only interpret as a population control measure. That's of course in addition to all the other stuff they kept doing, but that's probably a discussion for another day. I'd note that the GP was careful to specifically mention Israel having withdrawn its military from Gaza which is true, so I'm not disputing the veracity of their claim on that specifically.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
h3rsko 3y ago
Israels next door neighbor calls for its total destruction and routinely launches rockets at its cities. In what world would they not blockade them?
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Did the UK blockade Ireland when the IRA was routinely conducting terror attacks in Northern Ireland? Did Spain institute controls on the amount of calories that could be imported into its Basque region when the separatists there were routinely committing acts of terror? Some behaviors are simply unacceptable - and the current blockade has been found to be illegal by the UN time and time again, or at least would have been without US vetos.
  - neoromantique 3y ago
    UN has proved itself to be severely biased towards Israel time and time again, so referring to it as some sort of source is weird.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      In this context the UN is simply the governing body of international law. It holds no mechanism of enforcement and is wowed to non-interference and impartiality. When the UN finds a blockade illegal it simply means that it violates the international laws it self has set. You can think of this like a supreme court ruling inside your own jurisdiction, just between states as opposed to people. There is no bias here, just law and interpretations on these laws. If this were the security council that would be another issue however.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      Criticizing Israel doing ethnic cleansing and war crimes stuff is not the same as being "severely biased".
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    The IRA was a terrorist group, not the official government of Ireland. During WW2 the Allies did in fact blockade Germany. The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
nahumfarchi 3y ago
That is a weird tangent to take. The population size in Gaza nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching approximately 2 million (). If the sea blockade is a population control measure, it's a highly ineffective one. Did ever you stop to consider that it's, maybe, I don't know, to stop them from bringing in stuff to shoot at us? () https://www.ft.com/content/7b618433-ba5f-4e92-a3e0-d5d41d6d17f8 https://www.ft.com/content/7b618433-ba5f-4e92-a3e0-d5d41d6d1...
- __blockcipher__ 3y ago
  I'm amazed that you avoided addressing the specific fact that they quite literally cap the number of calories allowed to come into the Gaza Strip. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-counted-calories-needed-for-gazans-in-blockade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-c... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/israeli-military-calorie-limit-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/israeli-milita...
  - nahumfarchi 3y ago
    And you're ignoring the fact that our neighbors are hostile towards us and share a border with another country.
ashirusnw 3y ago
The "blockade" was Israel protecting its borders once Hamas seized control. And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt. For much of the time, Israel allowed goods through the tough restrictions on what types of materials were allowed in started once Hamas started tunneling into Israel to commit attacks. Very recently, Israel increased significantly the number of work permits for Gazans to work in Israel in the mistaken belief that Hamas and Gazans were getting comfortable with improved economy and this would gradually lead to deradicalisation and eventual peace. The other estimated the humanity of Hamas who it turns out were actually planning barbarism.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt. The fact that Israel has an agreement with Egypt governing that border crossing and preventing imports other than as approved by Israel undermines the "its not a blockade because one border touches Egypt" argument.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> If Ukraine were to bomb a Russian city during the current war, no one would views it as legitimate for Russia to bomb a Ukrainian city back If Kyiv went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a rave, their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat. Had Hamas hit military installations (demonstrating Israeli impotency) and taken hostages, but treated them well (taking the moral high ground as images of Nonna being served tea and falafel are juxtaposed with those of aerial bombardment), our conversation right now would be very different. You're broadly right. One component of the solution must be an independent Gaza (if not Palestinian state). Another has to be reparations for the Nakba. Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K. and possibly French. (Reparations for the blockade are needlessly divisive. Israel can always argue, legitimately, I believe, that it was Palestine's Arab allies who repeatedly attacked it first.)

tsimionescu 3y ago
> If Ukraine went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a group of kids partying, I'm pretty sure their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia, in some sense, would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat. That is an interesting thought experiment in itself. I'd like to believe you are right, but then I remember that there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated. There was also little interest to determine if Ukraine may have been behind the destruction of the dam that killed many innocent civilians. So, I'm not entirely sure how European and US opinion would have oriented. > Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K.--they are the ones who took the land and gave it to another That is a good point, and I'm pretty sure other European states would have quite a bit to attone for to help set this right.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated Massive difference between targeted killing and broad slaughter. To put this on the other shoe, it's why we were never going to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan or Vietnam.

Invictus0 3y ago

Is there any reason to believe that a Palestinian state with full control of its borders would not immediately begin the process of accumulating weapons to repeat Oct 7? Hamas has never affirmed Israel's right to exist.

tsimionescu 3y ago
Treaties and UN involvement could be arranged to help guarantee this. However, what is clear is that Israel's current approach is not working to ensure its security, and that in the last few decades it has only succeeded in turning the population of Palestine ever more bitter against them. So, unless they are prepared to wipe them out entirely, what possible hope is there in continuing in this direction? Say Hamas is successfully eliminated. Every single Hamas leader and soldier is killed or captured. Is there any reason whatsoever to imagine that people in Gaza could return to their bulldozed and bombed "homes" and feel friendly towards Israel? Or did this incursion all but guarantee that the next generation of Gazans will feel even more justified in defying Israel? And note, the same question is true of Hamas' monstrous attack - no doubt the vast majority of those hurt by the Hamas attack will feel justified in hating and fearing Gaza and Hamas. It's just harder to ask the ones being oppressed to just bear with it in the hope their oppressor might stop.
- neoromantique 3y ago
  >Treaties and UN involvement UN has assisted Hamas in the past, there is no reason to believe it would be any different this time. The history didn't start on October 7th, what has happened on October 7th is the violence went over the threshold in which Israel would believe intent of international community and instead is handling it themselves despite the uproar.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    The history before October 7th is generally that for every Israeli civilian killed by Palestinian terror attacks, there have been 2-5 Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers or police, at least in the last 20 years or so. Even the monstrous Hamas attacks from October 7th don't reverse the death toll comparison (and that's before the invasion). So, if anything, a more accurate description is that October 7th was a boiling point where Palestine retaliated for decades of oppressive killings. But the reality is that neither is the right framing. The October 7th attacks on innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. The following invasion and widespread murder of innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. A ceasefire and peace deals must be imposed to keep the situation under control. All those who have caused the death of civilians, both in Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership, should face international justice, and new leaders should be installed that are committed to a lasting peace process.

ashirusnw 3y ago

Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, dismantling is own Israeli settlements despite massive protests by the seller movements, and only imposing a blockade once a terrorist group took absolute control (and threw Gays and Fatah opponents off rooftops to their deaths) Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt).

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, Israel didn't disengage entirely from Gaza, it maintains a murder zone inside Gaza, and has murdered unarmed peaceful protestors in Gaza within that murder zone.
- js212 3y ago
  “Protestors” Who were trying to get over the border into Israel? Look what happened when civilians got into Israel on 10/7. Were they also “peaceful”?
tsimionescu 3y ago
> Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt). Gaza has sea access, but Israel doesn't allow any ship to dock into Gaza or leave Gaza - this is blockading Gaza's own sea borders, not closing Israel's. Egypt's border with Gaza is also controlled by Israel through a treaty - Egypt can't unilaterally open its border to Gaza without breaking its treaties with Israel.
hbt 3y ago
[flagged]

nahumfarchi 3y ago

In this certain case, it is. The aggressions (during this round) started on October 7th by Hamas. You can replace "defense" with "response" / "retaliation" / or "zionist agressions" if you're reading certain news sources. I will admit that the my background affected my word choice to some extent. The history of this conflict is a lot more complex than the occupier/ occupied framing would imply. For one, there was a Jewish presence here for centuries, not to mention the ancient kingdom of Judea. But I find these discussions unconstructive usually since they seem to get into these "he hit me first" kind of arguments. I agree that a two state solution is what we should be striving for. Humans are creative, if the will was there, we would find a way to connect Gaza and the West Bank (tunnel/bridge/whatever), do some territory swaps as needed, divide Jerusalem, etc. The plans for this exist, it's the leadership that's failing (on both sides).

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>In general, the overall solution would be for Israel to allow Palestine to be an independent state, recognized in the UN, with full control of its own borders. What would be the solution of that independent state went to war and attacked Israel again? Would you agree at that juncture that Israel would be within its rights to destroy and conquer that state?

tsimionescu 3y ago
No, there is no allowance in international law for conquering and destroying a state. If you are attacked by a different state, you obviously have the full right to defend yourself and destroy the military installations used to attack you. You have a right to attack back and seek regime change and impose terms that ensure another attack can't happen, and even seek reparations. But you do not have the right to attack the civilian population or to take their land. Even if you think they were for the war. The allies didn't conquer and destroy Japan or Germany. They didn't divide their territories among themselves (even the separation of Germany still left two sovereign states). We have also learned from the end of WW1 and WW2 that investing into the old enemy state to make it happy and successful is in fact a MUCH better solution for lasting peace than pounding them into submission and trying to sap their economy. If Israel had sought a Marshall-plan like solution for Gaza after the Yom-Kippur war instead of a military occupation for the following 30 years, perhaps Hamas wouldn't have won the 2005 elections in the first place.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think the compairison to Japan and Germany is interesting, although there are obvious differences. Both Japan and Germany had major civil cities leveled and gave unconditional surrender in WWII, and were occupied. Germany was stripped of its sovereignty and former statehood. It was administered by the allies for 5 years and permanently lost 25% of its territory (compared to its 1937 pre-war borders.) It took 25 years post WWII for Germany to be admitted to the UN. Japan was Occupied and administered by US military for 7 years following the war, and parts of the Japanese home islands are still administered 70 years later. Japan Lost multiple territories it had held for more than 60 years before WWII started. I think that what we learned from WWII and subsequent wars that you need unconditional surrender and acceptance for any real nation building to take place. Perhaps Palestine needs their equivalent to Germany's first post-war chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who accepted that Germany lost, and was willing look forward and not back.

dang 3y ago

> You seem to be arguing from a bizarre perspective This sort of swipe is against the spirit of the HN guidelines and particularly the spirit we asked commenters in this thread to keep. Please don't do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html