4 ms·

That is not how "don't do war crimes" works. It's incumbent upon Israel to find an alternative.

dmix 1y ago
That would probably require some serious infrastructure to set up secure food distribution points, which I'm assuming isn't easy because the locations have to change as the evacuation areas also constantly changimg. From the video it looks like they only have some berms and small fences so I'd imagine it's a dangerous security situation. Although having way more food/distribution points might help reduce the violent mobs.
- 9dev 1y ago
  Do you realise how incredibly cynical you sound? We're not discussing the finer details of a logistical challenge here, but the fate of people starving to death. People that by and large are innocent. Also: It'd require infrastructure that did exist before the IDF destroyed it. To feed people that weren't hungry before Israel blocked humanitarian aid. Don't reverse the guilt.
  - rendall 1y ago
    Coming up with a solution sounds cynical to you? It's a solution. What do you suggest?
rendall 1y ago
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel has decided to starve out Gazans in order to end the war. You have the choice to save them by offering a better solution. What is it? "Not X!" is a copout. Unfortunately for that perspective, finding a good solution means diving in and understanding the conflict from the Israeli perspective.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  Occupying powers have a legal responsibility to provide aid to civilians in territories they occupy. They also have a legal responsibility to figure out the logistics. They also cannot commit war crimes. So the solution is for israel to do what they are legally required to do, and stop doing what they are legally proscribed from doing. Everything else (hostage return, feelings of safety, etc) is: 1. Less important, and 2. Equally applicable to both israel and palestine Finding a good solution means diving in and understanding the conflict beyond israel's perspective: There is simply no legal or moral justification for the atrocities we see here. None whatsoever.
  - davidf18 1y ago
    [dead]
  - beepbopboopp 1y ago
    This is a gross oversimplification. Hamas has used aid drops as attack points and military refueling opportunities. The idea that this conflict has a good guy bad guy and is simple has done more disservice to an outcome than almost anything else.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      > This is a gross oversimplification. That is a valid opinion, and I also have an equally valid opinion, that it is a gross undersimplification. Our two valid opinions cancel each other out! :) > Hamas has used aid drops as attack points and military refueling opportunities. This may be true, or it may be false (israel forbids journalists from reporting from Gaza and often attacks them) but it is included in the "everything else" referred to in the above post. Nothing Hamas does detracts from israel's obligations I mentioned. That's why it's not a "gross oversimplification". Besides, israel has been systematically using aid points as attack points.
- 9dev 1y ago
  It's not. I can be against the wrong thing because it's wrong. Following your line of argument, I could propose using eugenics to end inherited diseases and sterilise all affected. You disagree? Well, offer a better solution then! What is it??
  - rendall 1y ago
    You can be against x, but if x will continue unless you do the hard work to provide an alternative, simply reiterating "Not X!" is unserious.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      >You can be against x, but if x will continue unless you do the hard work to provide an alternative, simply reiterating "Not X!" is unserious. To be clear, "x" here is short for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. An alternative to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was provided here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 Before you respond there, please remember that while you and israel likely have opinions regarding alternatives, neither of you are the judge of them.
      - rendall 1y ago
        X is "What do Israelis do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of Arabs on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want them and their children dead." Ok, go. Two states? Palestinians overwhelmingly want one state. Build a wall? UN hates it. Leave them alone to do as they will? Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza... of Jews* and that didn't work. What should Israel do?
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        "x" here is short for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. An alternative to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was provided here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 > What do Israelis do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of [Palestinians] on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want them and their children dead... Before we answer that: what do Palestinians do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of israelis on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want Palestinians and their children dead. Both of those concerns are covered at the link above, starting with the words, "Everything else...", because both of those concerns are less important than stopping war crimes and ethnic cleansing. > What should Israel do? Please take the time to read the post I linked above, and answer there, as it answers this question. While you do that, consider expanding the question: "What should israel and Palestine do", since the 2 warring countries and their peoples are equal, have equal rights, and deserve equal protection.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
  >> "Not X!" is a copout. So because it's a copout, let's go and do X which will make it impossible to then do Y and Z that may have been far preferable than X. That's not a copout, sure, but what is it? I suppose the polite, technical term is "opportunity cost"? Kill tens of thousands of people: ensure you can never make peace with their relatives.

dmix 1y ago

That would probably require some serious infrastructure to set up secure food distribution points, which I'm assuming isn't easy because the locations have to change as the evacuation areas also constantly changimg. From the video it looks like they only have some berms and small fences so I'd imagine it's a dangerous security situation. Although having way more food/distribution points might help reduce the violent mobs.

9dev 1y ago
Do you realise how incredibly cynical you sound? We're not discussing the finer details of a logistical challenge here, but the fate of people starving to death. People that by and large are innocent. Also: It'd require infrastructure that did exist before the IDF destroyed it. To feed people that weren't hungry before Israel blocked humanitarian aid. Don't reverse the guilt.
- rendall 1y ago
  Coming up with a solution sounds cynical to you? It's a solution. What do you suggest?

rendall 1y ago

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel has decided to starve out Gazans in order to end the war. You have the choice to save them by offering a better solution. What is it? "Not X!" is a copout. Unfortunately for that perspective, finding a good solution means diving in and understanding the conflict from the Israeli perspective.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
Occupying powers have a legal responsibility to provide aid to civilians in territories they occupy. They also have a legal responsibility to figure out the logistics. They also cannot commit war crimes. So the solution is for israel to do what they are legally required to do, and stop doing what they are legally proscribed from doing. Everything else (hostage return, feelings of safety, etc) is: 1. Less important, and 2. Equally applicable to both israel and palestine Finding a good solution means diving in and understanding the conflict beyond israel's perspective: There is simply no legal or moral justification for the atrocities we see here. None whatsoever.
- davidf18 1y ago
  [dead]
- beepbopboopp 1y ago
  This is a gross oversimplification. Hamas has used aid drops as attack points and military refueling opportunities. The idea that this conflict has a good guy bad guy and is simple has done more disservice to an outcome than almost anything else.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > This is a gross oversimplification. That is a valid opinion, and I also have an equally valid opinion, that it is a gross undersimplification. Our two valid opinions cancel each other out! :) > Hamas has used aid drops as attack points and military refueling opportunities. This may be true, or it may be false (israel forbids journalists from reporting from Gaza and often attacks them) but it is included in the "everything else" referred to in the above post. Nothing Hamas does detracts from israel's obligations I mentioned. That's why it's not a "gross oversimplification". Besides, israel has been systematically using aid points as attack points.
9dev 1y ago
It's not. I can be against the wrong thing because it's wrong. Following your line of argument, I could propose using eugenics to end inherited diseases and sterilise all affected. You disagree? Well, offer a better solution then! What is it??
- rendall 1y ago
  You can be against x, but if x will continue unless you do the hard work to provide an alternative, simply reiterating "Not X!" is unserious.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    >You can be against x, but if x will continue unless you do the hard work to provide an alternative, simply reiterating "Not X!" is unserious. To be clear, "x" here is short for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. An alternative to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was provided here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 Before you respond there, please remember that while you and israel likely have opinions regarding alternatives, neither of you are the judge of them.
    - rendall 1y ago
      X is "What do Israelis do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of Arabs on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want them and their children dead." Ok, go. Two states? Palestinians overwhelmingly want one state. Build a wall? UN hates it. Leave them alone to do as they will? Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza... of Jews* and that didn't work. What should Israel do?
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        "x" here is short for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. An alternative to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was provided here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 > What do Israelis do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of [Palestinians] on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want them and their children dead... Before we answer that: what do Palestinians do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of israelis on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want Palestinians and their children dead. Both of those concerns are covered at the link above, starting with the words, "Everything else...", because both of those concerns are less important than stopping war crimes and ethnic cleansing. > What should Israel do? Please take the time to read the post I linked above, and answer there, as it answers this question. While you do that, consider expanding the question: "What should israel and Palestine do", since the 2 warring countries and their peoples are equal, have equal rights, and deserve equal protection.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 1y ago
>> "Not X!" is a copout. So because it's a copout, let's go and do X which will make it impossible to then do Y and Z that may have been far preferable than X. That's not a copout, sure, but what is it? I suppose the polite, technical term is "opportunity cost"? Kill tens of thousands of people: ensure you can never make peace with their relatives.