20 ms·

I see an increasing number of politicians taking the position: "I supported Israel's government's actions when they first attacked, given the goals of destroyi

I see an increasing number of politicians taking the position: "I supported Israel's government's actions when they first attacked, given the goals of destroying Hamas' leadership and freeing hostages, but now that it has turned into a brutal siege with mass civilian casualties on a horrific scale, I'm strongly against their actions." E.g. Macron, Angus King, and many people I know personally. And I think we need to say "Great!" The dumbest reaction is "screw you, you were for Israel's invasion and you're an asshole." Movements that want to grow should accept people who change their minds when the situation changes, they get new data, or they learn a new perspective.

tim333 1y ago
Pretty much my take. I thought Israel's actions were reasonable at first but out of hand now.
- torlok 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - wredcoll 1y ago
      > Jewish people occupied the entire region long before Islam existed or Islamic Arabs took it over? And other peoples occupied the region long before judaism was an idea in some shepherd's preaching. The problem with this logic is, where do you stop. At what point do you declare "these people were the special first ones and anyone before them doesn't matter"? Much less the mental gymnastics required to believe that which human owned which land in 500bce is relevant to how to deal with things in 2025. It's not that we should ignore history, it's absolutely worth understanding how we got to the current position, but we shouldn't privilege it over the lives and wellbeing of actual people living right now.
  - thenaturalist 1y ago
    [flagged]
- runarberg 1y ago
  [flagged]
- King-Aaron 1y ago
  I feel like this has been the case for decades. It is very asymmetrical.
  - SauciestGNU 1y ago
    I think many people have their own personal revelation where they come to believe what Israel is doing is not self-defense but rather genocide. For me that came in the 2008/2009 Gaza offensive where they inflicted roughly 100 deaths for every Israeli who was killed in the initial attack. The Freedom Flotilla incident in early 2010 where they murdered the aid volunteers in international waters only further solidified my opinion.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- kristopolous 1y ago
  Historically, any nationalist project on behalf of any group requiring large migration for it to work led to a removal and replacement of some group with another. United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, failed ones like Rhodesia...there's really no counter-example I can think of. Regardless of where you land, I don't think anyone can look at what's going on in the middle east and think things are going fine - or ever were. Perhaps, if we ever decide to act globally, we shouldn't permit any more migratory nationalist projects - they seem to be inherently problematic.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    No, people just nee to learn to live alongside eachother ffs.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - tbrownaw 1y ago
      How does this work when a group wants to move in to an area that's already completely in use by another group?
      - SR2Z 1y ago
        It's not completely in-use. The motivation for the entire state of Israel's existence is that the Jewish people need a homeland or else they will keep getting persecuted. That rules out a Muslim-majority state with a lot of Jews in it. Given the demographics of Jewish people outside of Israel, it's hard to disagree with. When you consider the early years of Israel, and how many wars were started to run the Jews out of it, it's even more well-supported. The best hope for a lasting peace was with the Oslo accords. They were torpedoed by the Palestinians themselves, who were unwilling to accept any kind of compromise that maintained a Jewish state. Not saying Israel is innocent, but the idea that so many people seem to have that the region would be happy-go-lucky and peaceful for Jewish people if not for the war is hopelessly naive.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  Israel has been blockading the Gaza Strip by air and sea for 18 years. The Gaza Strip is, as far as I know, the only place in the world whose fishermen can't fish in the full extent of its territorial waters. This has been true since way before Oct. 7th 2023.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - School-Cotton 1y ago
      In the West Bank, whose Palestinian population is administered by an organization that fully collaborates with the Israeli occupation and does not engage in armed struggle, Israeli repression continues unabated (statelessness, restriction on freedom of movement, expansion of Jewish-only colonial settlements, arbitrary detention under Israeli military law, etc.) Sure, maybe if Hamas surrendered there wouldn’t be a blockade, specifically, but given the example of the West Bank right next door it’s hard to imagine that repression wouldn’t continue in some form.
      - frahs 1y ago
        Ah yes, the west bank, where they have a leader who's graduate thesis is in holocaust denial[0] and where they incentivize murdering innocent civilians[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_... Until these things lose popular support among the west bank, I don't have a ton of sympathy. Yes we can get into tracing back the chain of causation -- these people grew up in an echo chamber and they had no outside source of information, and Israeli soldiers likely killed family members of theirs unfairly when they were little, so of course they're going to say things like Death to Israel [2] and have a countdown timer until when they want to genocide the entire country [3] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Israel [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clo... (These examples actually stem from Iran, where most of the funding for Hamas comes from) But don't you think it's a little unfair to only defend one side with fatalistic determinism? Israelis are treated as humans who are making horrible decisions. Mahmoud Abbas is treated as a poor innocent bystander who is just the product of his environment, so of course he's going to think those things. I think he's a human too, and he has made very bad decisions too. Somehow western people always forget this stuff, but luckily the religious fanatics just love to do religious fanatical things, so it makes it easy to point to examples.
- unwise-exe 1y ago
  Israel's response was obvious as soon as the attack happened. "Oh, looks like they've got that excuse they've been wanting."
  - literatepeople 1y ago
    It's hard to describe to people who don't have family there, but this exactly. The goal is similar to American "manifest destiny". They want to, through whatever means necessary, displace (at best) the existing Palestinian population and take their land.
    - beepbopboopp 1y ago
      Please explain to me what you mean. From my perspective, they handed over control of the region and have had countless opportunities since the handoff to occupy the land permanently had they so chosen. Couldn't it just as easily be argued that they no longer trust sharing a border with them?
      - 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
        I feel like it would have been harder to get this far without international support had the Oct 7th attack not happened. I don’t know about you, but I’d be a bit more lenient if you’re trying to rescue civilian hostages. I don’t know anything about the impetus for the Oct 7th attack was, but you have to wonder why.
        beepbopboopp 1y ago
        Im not following this comment. Please say it again.
    - flyinglizard 1y ago
      Israelis voted in a government 20 years ago just to pull out from Gaza and give them their autonomy (which Gazans used to swiftly vote in Hamas, and that was the single and last time they had elections since). Saying Israel was interested in that land is disingenuous.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
kn0where 1y ago
It’s fine to accept your mom or your neighbor changing their mind, but I think we should be skeptical of politicians changing their mind and consider what hidden, calculated motives they may have for changing it now, when they had plenty of information to reach the same conclusion over a year ago.
- carefulfungi 1y ago
  Then what does winning actually look like today? Sure. Run against these people and support their political opposition in the next election. But take the win on the short term and get food to Gaza.
  - mjevans 1y ago
    Think about it from a logical perspective. Israel's real enemy won't stop and won't surrender until that country and it's people don't exist. They have taken the innocent civilian's of Gaza / Palistine / whatever you want to call the area hostage. They are also so ingrained into the region that resources are literally siphoned from humanitarian sites like hospitals into deep tunnels beneath; as just one example of reporting I'm inclined to believe is credible, even with the mutual atrocities both sites are carrying out. What would winning look like from a moral and ethical standpoint? Liberating the people of that region from the violence and suffering. Return them to a functioning society with social and civic infrastructure. Fully deny major violence and terrorism in the region for LIFETIMES to the point that the hate and anger finally cool off enough for people to move on. ... Winning is going to require a multi-generational investment in humanity by humanity. It's going to require the buy in of the people on the ground. It's going to require a United Nations coalition and boots on the ground from interests in that region who want to raise everyone above the hate. Also the afflicted country will need to be an absolute DMZ for that entire time. Membership in the UN peacekeeping organization the only military service allowed (and then likely in other countries). Getting from here to there? Even less popular than the hugely unpopular war(s) anywhere else in the world. Don't ask me how anyone could do it, those skilled in the art of diplomacy have tried for longer than my lifetime and probably longer than your's and NOTHING has stuck.
giraffe_lady 1y ago
An interesting thing in this case then is to see how these mind-changers are treating the people who called it correctly from the beginning. Is there any mea culpa, any contrition for the lives they could have saved by acting earlier? apologies for the protestors they attacked, the movements they painted as antisemitic? Anything learned for the future. We all had the same information after all.
- josephg 1y ago
  What do you imagine that mea culpa to look like? Personally I don’t see it being a case of one side of protesters being “right” and “wrong”. I just think Israel should have pulled out an awfully long time ago. They went too far, have done too much damage and the calculus doesn’t make sense any more. I have no problem with the initial invasion of Gaza to stop Hamas and get their people back. I’m not sorry for saying so, or holding that position after Hamas gave them such a clear casus belli. But it doesn’t seem to be about that any more. There’s been too much bloodshed. Something needs to change. I’m not sure what you’re looking for. An apology? For what, exactly? For being told there are antisemitic people taking advantage of this conflict to hate on Jews? There are.
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    It was clear to me and many other people from the first days after oct 7 that the actions taken by israel in gaza did not align with their stated goals, and that genocide was the likely outcome. I hope people changing their view of it now will reflect on at what point they could have seen that, and what prevented them from seeing it, and what prevented them from taking seriously the people who did see it. Does everyone hold the belief that everything was fine until two days ago? I don't think that's a very strong position.
    - maroonblazer 1y ago
      Israel didn't take any actions until Oct 13. What actions 'from the first days' are you referring to?
eutropia 1y ago
Yes we should encourage changing minds. ...Except I clocked Israel as having genocidal ambitions within days of Hamas' attack, right about the time their generals started talking about cutting off power and water to the entirety of gaza. I have imagine I am both less informed and more naive than any of these politicians. I don't have to applaud them when they spinelessly slither with the prevailing political winds.
- Cyph0n 1y ago
  [flagged]
- sudopluto 1y ago
  hamas could surrender tomorrow and end any pretense or cover for the "genocidal ambitions". you are being incredibly racist towards palestinians by infantilizing them and suggesting that hamas doesn't have any agency or responsibility for this war or it's effect on innocent civilians.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    I think you are putting too much weight on the organization rather than the idea and collective it represents. From a very westernized idealized perspective. Hamas is not this all encompassing high communication stable organization able to surrender tomorrow. Hamas, or rather the idea, is instead made up of everyone who had a family member, relative or friend killed by Israel wanting to live a good life without the threat or pain of past actions. One group of a loosely connected collective surrendering won’t materially change the situation on the ground.
  - rightbyte 1y ago
    Agency? Weak orgs does not have agency. You could claim Netanyahu has been running the Hamas nomination committee by bombs. I would guess they are mainly cells of self playing pianos by now with some expatriot spokesmen.
YZF 1y ago
I'm in the same camp tbh. I think Israel should not be putting all of Gaza under siege. It's not moral. This will also not work because the Hamas doesn't care about Gazans. It's also not helping Israel (other than some internal politics between Netanyahu and his right wing extremists). Totally agree on people need to be able to change their minds based on new data and as the situation changes. I'm personally constantly trying to evaluate that. You do need to keep in mind though that data coming out of Gaza is still to a large extent controlled by Hamas. There is definitely a humanitarian crisis but it's amplified by Hamas for obvious reasons (trying to force Israel into stopping the war and allowing it to recover Gaza). Hamas is also benefiting from the crisis and it's actively fueling it. It also needs to have enough food for its fighters to keep going. Technically from an international law perspective a siege is legal as long as civilians have a chance to leave. Israel can legally lay siege to Gaza city and the northern Gaza strip as long as it allows civilians to move south. This isn't working because the civilians don't want to move, or are forced to not move, or can't move, or have no place to really go to, so it's just not a good idea. Another thing you're missing IMO is that some of the people attacking Israel here aren't generally in the camp of supporting Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas or use force to free the hostages. If your starting point is either denying Oct 7th or trying to somehow excuse Hamas or even support Hamas then you are not in the same camp as these politicians and you'll never be. For the people who genuinely care and want to see an end to the war and a path forward, we need to find a way to get Hamas to yield. If there was a path that could get us there from an immediate ceasefire and end to the war I'd get behind it. It's not clear that path exists. In the absence of this path then Israel can and should do better to aid civilians but the war is not going to end.
- ivape 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jahewson 1y ago
    The problem is not the narrative. The problem is Hamas.
    - 1y ago
TacticalCoder 1y ago
It's good to be honest about all the horrors going on in the world, not just when they're committed by jewish people (I'm not jewish btw). For example there are recents vids of syrian muslims going door to door in villages in Syria and asking people if they are muslims or of the Druze faith: those answering they're from the Druze faith are shot on the spot. This qualify as war crimes too to me. But you don't get to read much about it in the mainstream media and many NGOs (not all) who are very active when it's about helping palestinians are keeping totally quiet on the subject too. I see much more outrage about what's happening to palestinians then what's happening to Druze people. Why is that? How comes it's so selective? Similarly: the western world is constantly reminded of colonialism. But why are the hutis getting a free pass for the 800 000 tustis they genocided 25 years ago? How comes they're not constantly reminded of what they did? Those who committed these atrocities, including regular citizens, are still alive today. And somehow we should pay because our great-great-great-great-grandfather was a colonialist? It's that dual standard, that highly selective outrage, that is very hard to stomach for me. BTW I don't recommend watching the vids of syrian muslims executing Druze people: it's hard.
- fn-mote 1y ago
  On one hand, I agree that honesty is important. On the other hand, this seems like whataboutism instead of honestly facing the truth. > not just when they're committed by jewish people Really skeptical that’s the filter that’s being applied here.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  > Why is that? How comes it's so selective? The main reason is that Israel is materially supported by the West, so Westerners feel morally responsible for what it does. It has little to do with whether the perpetrators are Jewish or not[1]. There were gigantic protests against the Iraq war, whose main perpetrators (e.g. Bush) were not Jewish. 1: I edited this from "nothing" to "little". I concede it might have something to do with anti-Semitism, because there is some non-zero group of people whose opposition to Israel is purely motivated by anti-Semitism, but I don't get the sense that they're the majority, at least among Westerners.
School-Cotton 1y ago
Yep. "Always give your opponent a path to retreat".
cm2012 1y ago
One could certainly argue about methods, but on October 8th, what options did Israel have except invasion of Gaza?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- beepbopboopp 1y ago
  This, but further more, there are 100s of comments about "the genocide" here, but almost none about what Israel should do. They have a neighbor who just committed a huge act of terror and whos standing installed political party calls for the elimination of the country. They live in a region where their ethnic group has essentially been wiped out systematically in all neighboring countries. So, "Stop the genocide" and then what? Build a bigger fence? Wait for the next episode? Im generally interested if anyone has an opinion that goes beyond leave Gaza alone and considers Israelis dilema.
  - droopyEyelids 1y ago
    I’m having trouble distilling the essence of your message in a way that leaves us with any common moral ground. Would you agree that “an eye for an eye” type justice is undesirable? Because it seems like you are advocating for genocide as a response to the oct attack, going well beyond “eye for an eye”!
    - beepbopboopp 1y ago
      Boiling it down to a catch phrase does it no justice. The war is being fought in a urban area, with an armed forced who refuses ceasefire and has repeatedly said it wont rest until all isrealis are dead. Again, my comment is, if you want them to stop fighting, what would you have them do next? Im not being rhetorical.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > refuses ceasefire and has repeatedly said it wont rest until all isrealis [sic] are dead Unfortunately, this is true of both sides, and one side seems much closer to accomplishing its goal than the other side. > what would you have them do The same question was answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080
ivape 1y ago
It’s more likely that Israel was given free rein for the timeline they wanted from the global order. Let’s say they asked for a full two years, where countries were basically under a gentleman’s gag order. Two years is enough time for the deed to be done, say whatever you need to say now, it doesn’t matter. You see that Israel has allowed aid in all of a sudden according to this contrived timeline. It’s not different than a teacher letting a bully beat down a kid for a solid 10 minutes and jumping in after with a “ok that’s enough now”. Such an actor is complicit. I’d urge people read Marin Luther King’s words on inaction.
- unwise-exe 1y ago
  That seems like a somewhat unlikely degree of international coordination.
  - ivape 1y ago
    It’s really not. France and England are suddenly realizing the genocide, and Israel has decided that now is the time aid gets to come in. Trump just admitted there is starvation in Gaza. It’s pretty coordinated. It’s an easy ask, “we just need 14 months of silence plus or minus, then whatever”.
    - jahewson 1y ago
      The U.K. didn’t even have the same government 14 months ago. Completely different party in power. The degree of coordination you’re talking about is not just unlikely but fantastical.
      - dontlaugh 1y ago
        And yet this New New Labour has been enacting the exact same policies as the Tories before them. "Completely different" is completely wrong.
    - SR2Z 1y ago
      The "suddenly" is likely because Trump took office and started making noises about paving Gaza over to build resorts. It was much easier for these countries to look the other way when the US was notionally holding Netanyahu's leash.
davkan 1y ago
Architects of this tragedy like Anthony Blinken should absolutely not be given the opportunity to whitewash their involvement.
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago
  It’s lazy and disingenuous to “both sides” this mess.
supplied_demand 1y ago
I remember a lot of people predicting it would lead to this from the start. The response was often along the lines of “If you don’t support Israel’s invasion, you are pro-Hamas.” If those people had a come-to-Jesus moment, great. That said, they probably owe an apology to the people they demonized as supporting terrorism.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  That's what stands out to me the most, when they change their mind that means everyone else was always right. Blaming all of Israel's chosen military strategy on Hamas invading at all is just weird. Like, there should really be a mental evaluation of everyone that repeated lines like that. Like seriously, trawl the entire internet for those people's screennames.
  - forkeep 1y ago
    [dead]
- pegasus 1y ago
  How about this response: "Denying Israel the right to protect themselves can't help but strengthen Hamas and won't bring anything other than more suffering to all parties. Israel will do what they need to do, all we can do is hope they will stop short of sinking to the same levels as Oct 7 perpetrators, even though historically it's unlikely, and even though Israel being dragged deeper into that murderous rage pit is exactly what Hamas aims for."
  - supplied_demand 1y ago
    I don’t recall many people denying Israel’s right to protect themselves against Hamas (I’m sure some did). The concern was them using it as an excuse to perpetrate the Palestinian genocide they wanted all along. That is what we now see. Your comment seems to use the familiar playbook of equating Palestinians and Hamas to muddy the waters. It is a pretty clear echo of the US’s response to 9/11. People were considered traitors if they didn’t support a full military invasion and occupation. In the end, that was clearly the wrong move.
dfxm12 1y ago
Movements that want to grow should accept people who change their minds when the situation changes, they get new data, or they learn a new perspective. The situation hasn't changed. The data is the same going back years. It's healthy to be cautious of people who join a movement under false pretenses like that. If they learned a new perspective, that's great! I just wish it didn't have to come to personally witnessing such brutality to gain a new perspective...
subpixel 1y ago
Those who wield power in Israel have calculated that they can do whatever they want at this moment and that they will enjoy functional impunity. I repudiate what they are doing, but I do not disagree with their calculation. I can imagine no scenario where any foreign power tries to actually stop them.
- waterlaw 1y ago
  There are numerous clips of Rabbis openly promoting the extermination of Palestinians. They use the story of Amalek from the Torah. One of the Rabbis I watched recently said "when you kill the first child it breaks your heart [...] then you start to enjoy it." _Many_ Rabbis are demanding that animals, children, women and unarmed males be "erased." IDF soldiers are bragging about killing and raping civilians on social media. One IDF soldier was complaining he hasn't shot any children under 12 yet. Netanyahu is a moderate. He's not an "extremist."
  - arbitrary_name 1y ago
    Evidence please!
    - em3rgent0rdr 1y ago
      I don't know what specific rabbis the parent referring to, but Israel's PM has referenced the Amalek story: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-referen...
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      South Africa's genocide case against Israel [1] is chock full of quotes from high level Israeli officials, including Netanyahu. Check page 59. Obviously much more has been said since that claim was filed, but the nature of genocidal rhetoric is such that you can't get much more extreme. Netanyahu himself repeatedly referenced the biblical tale of Amalek [2] which reaches its climax with this passage [3] : "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." [1] - https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/South-Africa-v-Israel.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/So... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek [3] - https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm
trhway 1y ago
>new data that is the main point for me. There are a lot of claims, yet almost no verifiable data. With smartphones everywhere and having seen how war is documented say in Ukraine (and also how the propaganda lies are made there), i believe practically no claim until there is a video for it. For example the news of shooting near aid distribution centers come almost every day. How come nobody has recorded it? Especially with Hamas flying a bunch of drones there, they would undoubtedly have made such footage and published the footage around the world. At the beginning of the Gaza war i put a bit of effort to calibrate for myself how much lying is there https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882
isr 1y ago
[flagged]
- frahs 1y ago
  Which Palestinians has Israel been a racist project to? The Israeli Palestinians that make up 20% of the population? Or the ones living on the other side of the border? I'm not sure it's only about race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
  - matusp 1y ago
    Have you actually read the link you posted? There is like dozen different ways Arab population is discriminated described there.
  - isr 1y ago
    And that kind of myopic, self indulgent, genocidal/racist/apartheid -apologist tone, trying to obfuscate plain truths... that pretty much sums up much of the responses on this forum, and the US tech sector (or at least its managers) in general. Leaving aside the moral bankruptcy, it also displays a stunning and fundamental ignorance of the flow of history. How many of you will end up having to pretend, 5 years from now, that this wasn't your online username, just to be allowed to function in "polite society". It also shows how much of a self-deluded echo chamber you live in, not realizing how completely such genocidal apologist propaganda has been debunked & discarded amongst the wider population - even within the US. It all smacks of the apocryphal saying of Marie Antoinette of "let them eat cake", weeks before she has a load taken off her shoulders
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
protocolture 1y ago
Eh nuance. Accept anyone who can accept they were wrong. But it has to come with that understanding, that they were wrong. Growth and understanding are great. "I love bombing civilian populations, I just hate the consequences of bombing civilian populations" is not the amazing support that people on the ground are looking for. Gotta attack the why. Why would you support killing civilians who pose no threat to you in the name of defense. Its been the common theme of anti war sentiment for the better part of a century. "Never Again". "Lest We Forget". etc. What was all that holocaust remembrance for if not to get ahead of and prevent situations like this (While Gaza doesnt have a lot to do with the holocaust in totality it sure looks like a Warsaw Ghetto). Its kind of useless to get people along for a single issue, ending the genocide in Gaza, but for them to not understand why the things that lead up to the genocide in Gaza are bad also. Mobilising a military, into a civilian area, that has been trained from birth to resent the people in that space, that they own that space, told that the government will support them killing civilians, is going to cause this. Supporting that action is bad actually. Wanting that military, in that area, is something an Asshole would want. The phrase "Mowing the grass" was coined in like 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass Its like closing a ticket without addressing the root cause. Just gonna come up again. >but now that it has turned into a brutal siege with mass civilian casualties on a horrific scale Its been that(again) since the IDF got organized, late 2023.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  > Its like closing a ticket without addressing the root cause. Just gonna come up again. (Note, I agree with your post and is not criticising you.) There is something poetic about making an analogy to Jira. It somewhats sums up the fatalistic emotional indifference among many to the genocide.
eviks 1y ago
There is no reason to believe that what you've described happened since those politicians knew about the "situation change" many months before the change in position, so they don't deserve the charitable acceptance
0xbadcafebee 1y ago
Israel has been an apartheid state for decades. This has nothing to do with Hamas. Anyone who is "changing their mind" now, hasn't - it's merely no longer socially acceptable to support naked indiscriminate brutality.
- Jensson 1y ago
  > Israel has been an apartheid state for decades Around 20% of Israelis are Muslims and they have full rights and get to vote, so no its not an apartheid state.
  - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
    If you talk to any Muslim that lives in Israel (which I have), you will realise that they only have full rights in theory. Arabs with Israeli passports are routinely searched and investigated by intelligence agencies, and in the occupied areas Arabs WITH Israeli passports are not allowed to visit certain areas (multiple sources online, including the recent Louis Theroux documentary). This is the very definition of an apartheid state.
    - tome 1y ago
      > in the occupied areas Arabs WITH Israeli passports are not allowed to visit certain areas No one with an Israeli passport is allowed to visit Area A of the West Bank, regardless of their ethnicity.
      - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
        Yeah. And? One case is an assertion of sovereignty (whether we agree or not), the other case is apartheid.
        tome 1y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that the reason that Arabs with Israeli passports are not allowed to enter certain areas of the West Bank is because no one with an Israeli passport is allowed to enter those areas.
casey2 1y ago
I draw the line far before supporting genocide they should all be in prison.
tdeck 1y ago
Except these politicians weren't sharing their opinion, they were making a calculated statement and deliberately refusing to acknowledge all evidence to the contrary for years. As an example, selling weapons to a country that will use them to commit war crimes violates US law. So the Biden administration claimed they had seen "no evidence" of Israel committing any war crimes. A ludicrous statement to anyone bothering to pay any attention at the time. Now we know that was a lie (actually we knew it then) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/3/former-us-official-without-a-doubt-over-israels-gaza-war-crimes https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/3/former-us-official-w... So is someone like Matt Miller who spent more than a year repeating genocide propaganda redeemed now? Of course not. These people have no principles at all, and their words are meaningless. Ww must be mindful of their actions.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
NomDePlum 1y ago
Dropping 500+ lbs indiscriminately on civilian populations does not need new data. War crimes have been perpetrated from extremely early on. What's happening now is just a continuation of what was happening at the start. It's better that there is some change but lots of groups, politicians and countries cannot expect genocide to be forgotten. Realistically we are nowhere close to any of this being resolved or even stopped so I'm not even sure there is anything yet changed.
epolanski 1y ago
Problem is, beyond voicing some disdain no country seems to be willing to do anything at all towards what is at this point a blatant genocide. No sanctions, no political pressure, no stop to selling weapons. What is France doing, in practice, to help the situation?
freehorse 1y ago
I would not talk about state leaders and governments as "changing their minds". Maybe they respond to pressure; maybe the state interests change. But whatever the case, what matters is actually stopping the genocide. If their "change in mind" helps that, that's enough for me right now. However I would rather see and applaud actions than words. Words are easy. I can also do words, but a president or government have power. In the meantime, has anything changed in Israel being supplied weapons to commit said genocide? That matters more imo than what a president or prime minister says. Hopefully things go that direction and actions do follow.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
gadders 1y ago
Not a massive fan of Israel, but I can't see any other country reacting in a different way to Oct 7th. The Hamas attack has to be one of the dumbest strategic moves ever made.
- throw310822 1y ago
  You mean reacting with war crimes, crimes against humanity, attempted genocide? This without even mentioning the fact that, given Israel's ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine, a military attack to Israel was entirely justified.
  - gadders 1y ago
    After 9/11, the US invaded 2 countries, one of which wasn't even involved. And honestly, if it had been my daughter raped and killed at a music festival, I'd have done worse.
    - throw310822 1y ago
      Ok, by this logic you're justifying whatever Hamas did, since many, many daughters of Palestinians and Gazans have been killed (and in some cases, raped) by Israel and Israeli soldiers for decades. And by the same proportion, what would be the justified reaction of Palestinians to Israel now if they had the means? Complete nuclear annihilation?
      - gadders 1y ago
        I think if Palestinians had nukes (or Iran), they would have already done this. Israel exists. That bell can't be un-rung. Palestinians could have got used to that fact and tried to build a nation, instead they want to kill Jews (and it is Jews, not just Israelis). Israel doesn't have clean hands in this, and could have done better as well. I've not heard of mass rapes by Israeli soldiers, though.
        throw310822 1y ago
throw310822 1y ago
While I agree it's very important to welcome people who changed their minds, there are a few things that still annoy me: - the situation was actually very clear from the start - Israel has been illegally occupying, enforcing apartheid, committing war crimes for decades. You always ignored it. - I don't hear any apology about the above, nor any indication that these people won't return to their default stance of pretending all is well in Palestine as soon as the bulk of the killing stops.
- pegasus 1y ago
  Was it clear? Did we always ignore it? Not convinced at all. All was and is not well in Palestine, but one thing I know, it ain't cut-and-dry, and Israel going all Hamas on Palestine doesn't make it so either.
  - throw310822 1y ago
    Yes, it's perfectly clear and always was. One country is illegally occupying territories outside its borders, illegally annexing them, transferring their civilian population there, ethnically cleansing the natives, enforcing apartheid against those who remain, using its soldiers to protect its citizens when they engage in pogroms against the natives, periodically bombing them, stealing their water, destroying their crops- all while enjoying full diplomatic and military support from the West. Those who resist are deemed "terrorists", condemned and vilified, and are "eliminated", together with any civilians, women and children who happen to be in the way. This has been going on for decades while the Western media ignores most of it, reporting acts of resistance and terrorism from the oppressed side as if they were motivated by ideological hatred, and in general depicting the situation as "complicated"- a position you're now repeating without a second thought.
    - pegasus 1y ago
      That's because you choose to look to only that one side of the story. Keeps things nice and tidy, it's true.
aa-jv 1y ago
Tens of thousands of people have been murdered because the justice latency of Western politicians is too damned high. The justice latency won't ever be what it needs to be until we jail our own war criminals, and that is never going to happen if we congratulate them when we should be prosecuting them.
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  Why are we involved at all makes much more sense to ask and I think will lead people to the criminals faster.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
faizmokh 1y ago
Imagine thinking they don't have any idea what it was. Truly a naive perspective.
chakintosh 1y ago
That would be correct if Israel didn't routinely do the exact same war crimes they are committing right now in Gaza for the past 20 years. It's depressing to say, but what Israel is doing right now is nothing new. It's par for the course and each 2 to 3 years you see the same war crimes in gaza, like clockwork. So yes, those world leaders are as guilty as Israel, they enabled this for years.
demarq 1y ago
So if a rapist “changed” their mind on consent do we just let them go because we need more feminists? Please do not confuse changing your mind with innocence. It’s all well and good to change your mind but accountability is still required. Remember the movement grew despite them and will certainly flourish without them. Nothing will strengthen the movement more than to see these leaders brought to justice.
chemmail 1y ago
I think we should give credit where credit it due in that the people in power in Israel is using the old holocaust as an excuse to commit another. The people in power do not 100% represent the people of a nation.

tim333 1y ago

Pretty much my take. I thought Israel's actions were reasonable at first but out of hand now.

torlok 1y ago
[flagged]
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - wredcoll 1y ago
    > Jewish people occupied the entire region long before Islam existed or Islamic Arabs took it over? And other peoples occupied the region long before judaism was an idea in some shepherd's preaching. The problem with this logic is, where do you stop. At what point do you declare "these people were the special first ones and anyone before them doesn't matter"? Much less the mental gymnastics required to believe that which human owned which land in 500bce is relevant to how to deal with things in 2025. It's not that we should ignore history, it's absolutely worth understanding how we got to the current position, but we shouldn't privilege it over the lives and wellbeing of actual people living right now.
- thenaturalist 1y ago
  [flagged]
runarberg 1y ago
[flagged]
King-Aaron 1y ago
I feel like this has been the case for decades. It is very asymmetrical.
- SauciestGNU 1y ago
  I think many people have their own personal revelation where they come to believe what Israel is doing is not self-defense but rather genocide. For me that came in the 2008/2009 Gaza offensive where they inflicted roughly 100 deaths for every Israeli who was killed in the initial attack. The Freedom Flotilla incident in early 2010 where they murdered the aid volunteers in international waters only further solidified my opinion.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
kristopolous 1y ago
Historically, any nationalist project on behalf of any group requiring large migration for it to work led to a removal and replacement of some group with another. United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, failed ones like Rhodesia...there's really no counter-example I can think of. Regardless of where you land, I don't think anyone can look at what's going on in the middle east and think things are going fine - or ever were. Perhaps, if we ever decide to act globally, we shouldn't permit any more migratory nationalist projects - they seem to be inherently problematic.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  No, people just nee to learn to live alongside eachother ffs.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    How does this work when a group wants to move in to an area that's already completely in use by another group?
    - SR2Z 1y ago
      It's not completely in-use. The motivation for the entire state of Israel's existence is that the Jewish people need a homeland or else they will keep getting persecuted. That rules out a Muslim-majority state with a lot of Jews in it. Given the demographics of Jewish people outside of Israel, it's hard to disagree with. When you consider the early years of Israel, and how many wars were started to run the Jews out of it, it's even more well-supported. The best hope for a lasting peace was with the Oslo accords. They were torpedoed by the Palestinians themselves, who were unwilling to accept any kind of compromise that maintained a Jewish state. Not saying Israel is innocent, but the idea that so many people seem to have that the region would be happy-go-lucky and peaceful for Jewish people if not for the war is hopelessly naive.
School-Cotton 1y ago
Israel has been blockading the Gaza Strip by air and sea for 18 years. The Gaza Strip is, as far as I know, the only place in the world whose fishermen can't fish in the full extent of its territorial waters. This has been true since way before Oct. 7th 2023.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    In the West Bank, whose Palestinian population is administered by an organization that fully collaborates with the Israeli occupation and does not engage in armed struggle, Israeli repression continues unabated (statelessness, restriction on freedom of movement, expansion of Jewish-only colonial settlements, arbitrary detention under Israeli military law, etc.) Sure, maybe if Hamas surrendered there wouldn’t be a blockade, specifically, but given the example of the West Bank right next door it’s hard to imagine that repression wouldn’t continue in some form.
    - frahs 1y ago
      Ah yes, the west bank, where they have a leader who's graduate thesis is in holocaust denial[0] and where they incentivize murdering innocent civilians[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_... Until these things lose popular support among the west bank, I don't have a ton of sympathy. Yes we can get into tracing back the chain of causation -- these people grew up in an echo chamber and they had no outside source of information, and Israeli soldiers likely killed family members of theirs unfairly when they were little, so of course they're going to say things like Death to Israel [2] and have a countdown timer until when they want to genocide the entire country [3] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Israel [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Square_Countdown_Clo... (These examples actually stem from Iran, where most of the funding for Hamas comes from) But don't you think it's a little unfair to only defend one side with fatalistic determinism? Israelis are treated as humans who are making horrible decisions. Mahmoud Abbas is treated as a poor innocent bystander who is just the product of his environment, so of course he's going to think those things. I think he's a human too, and he has made very bad decisions too. Somehow western people always forget this stuff, but luckily the religious fanatics just love to do religious fanatical things, so it makes it easy to point to examples.
unwise-exe 1y ago
Israel's response was obvious as soon as the attack happened. "Oh, looks like they've got that excuse they've been wanting."
- literatepeople 1y ago
  It's hard to describe to people who don't have family there, but this exactly. The goal is similar to American "manifest destiny". They want to, through whatever means necessary, displace (at best) the existing Palestinian population and take their land.
  - beepbopboopp 1y ago
    Please explain to me what you mean. From my perspective, they handed over control of the region and have had countless opportunities since the handoff to occupy the land permanently had they so chosen. Couldn't it just as easily be argued that they no longer trust sharing a border with them?
    - 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
      I feel like it would have been harder to get this far without international support had the Oct 7th attack not happened. I don’t know about you, but I’d be a bit more lenient if you’re trying to rescue civilian hostages. I don’t know anything about the impetus for the Oct 7th attack was, but you have to wonder why.
      - beepbopboopp 1y ago
        Im not following this comment. Please say it again.
  - flyinglizard 1y ago
    Israelis voted in a government 20 years ago just to pull out from Gaza and give them their autonomy (which Gazans used to swiftly vote in Hamas, and that was the single and last time they had elections since). Saying Israel was interested in that land is disingenuous.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

kn0where 1y ago

It’s fine to accept your mom or your neighbor changing their mind, but I think we should be skeptical of politicians changing their mind and consider what hidden, calculated motives they may have for changing it now, when they had plenty of information to reach the same conclusion over a year ago.

carefulfungi 1y ago
Then what does winning actually look like today? Sure. Run against these people and support their political opposition in the next election. But take the win on the short term and get food to Gaza.
- mjevans 1y ago
  Think about it from a logical perspective. Israel's real enemy won't stop and won't surrender until that country and it's people don't exist. They have taken the innocent civilian's of Gaza / Palistine / whatever you want to call the area hostage. They are also so ingrained into the region that resources are literally siphoned from humanitarian sites like hospitals into deep tunnels beneath; as just one example of reporting I'm inclined to believe is credible, even with the mutual atrocities both sites are carrying out. What would winning look like from a moral and ethical standpoint? Liberating the people of that region from the violence and suffering. Return them to a functioning society with social and civic infrastructure. Fully deny major violence and terrorism in the region for LIFETIMES to the point that the hate and anger finally cool off enough for people to move on. ... Winning is going to require a multi-generational investment in humanity by humanity. It's going to require the buy in of the people on the ground. It's going to require a United Nations coalition and boots on the ground from interests in that region who want to raise everyone above the hate. Also the afflicted country will need to be an absolute DMZ for that entire time. Membership in the UN peacekeeping organization the only military service allowed (and then likely in other countries). Getting from here to there? Even less popular than the hugely unpopular war(s) anywhere else in the world. Don't ask me how anyone could do it, those skilled in the art of diplomacy have tried for longer than my lifetime and probably longer than your's and NOTHING has stuck.

giraffe_lady 1y ago

An interesting thing in this case then is to see how these mind-changers are treating the people who called it correctly from the beginning. Is there any mea culpa, any contrition for the lives they could have saved by acting earlier? apologies for the protestors they attacked, the movements they painted as antisemitic? Anything learned for the future. We all had the same information after all.

josephg 1y ago
What do you imagine that mea culpa to look like? Personally I don’t see it being a case of one side of protesters being “right” and “wrong”. I just think Israel should have pulled out an awfully long time ago. They went too far, have done too much damage and the calculus doesn’t make sense any more. I have no problem with the initial invasion of Gaza to stop Hamas and get their people back. I’m not sorry for saying so, or holding that position after Hamas gave them such a clear casus belli. But it doesn’t seem to be about that any more. There’s been too much bloodshed. Something needs to change. I’m not sure what you’re looking for. An apology? For what, exactly? For being told there are antisemitic people taking advantage of this conflict to hate on Jews? There are.
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  It was clear to me and many other people from the first days after oct 7 that the actions taken by israel in gaza did not align with their stated goals, and that genocide was the likely outcome. I hope people changing their view of it now will reflect on at what point they could have seen that, and what prevented them from seeing it, and what prevented them from taking seriously the people who did see it. Does everyone hold the belief that everything was fine until two days ago? I don't think that's a very strong position.
  - maroonblazer 1y ago
    Israel didn't take any actions until Oct 13. What actions 'from the first days' are you referring to?

eutropia 1y ago

Yes we should encourage changing minds. ...Except I clocked Israel as having genocidal ambitions within days of Hamas' attack, right about the time their generals started talking about cutting off power and water to the entirety of gaza. I have imagine I am both less informed and more naive than any of these politicians. I don't have to applaud them when they spinelessly slither with the prevailing political winds.

Cyph0n 1y ago
[flagged]
sudopluto 1y ago
hamas could surrender tomorrow and end any pretense or cover for the "genocidal ambitions". you are being incredibly racist towards palestinians by infantilizing them and suggesting that hamas doesn't have any agency or responsibility for this war or it's effect on innocent civilians.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  I think you are putting too much weight on the organization rather than the idea and collective it represents. From a very westernized idealized perspective. Hamas is not this all encompassing high communication stable organization able to surrender tomorrow. Hamas, or rather the idea, is instead made up of everyone who had a family member, relative or friend killed by Israel wanting to live a good life without the threat or pain of past actions. One group of a loosely connected collective surrendering won’t materially change the situation on the ground.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  Agency? Weak orgs does not have agency. You could claim Netanyahu has been running the Hamas nomination committee by bombs. I would guess they are mainly cells of self playing pianos by now with some expatriot spokesmen.

YZF 1y ago

I'm in the same camp tbh. I think Israel should not be putting all of Gaza under siege. It's not moral. This will also not work because the Hamas doesn't care about Gazans. It's also not helping Israel (other than some internal politics between Netanyahu and his right wing extremists). Totally agree on people need to be able to change their minds based on new data and as the situation changes. I'm personally constantly trying to evaluate that. You do need to keep in mind though that data coming out of Gaza is still to a large extent controlled by Hamas. There is definitely a humanitarian crisis but it's amplified by Hamas for obvious reasons (trying to force Israel into stopping the war and allowing it to recover Gaza). Hamas is also benefiting from the crisis and it's actively fueling it. It also needs to have enough food for its fighters to keep going. Technically from an international law perspective a siege is legal as long as civilians have a chance to leave. Israel can legally lay siege to Gaza city and the northern Gaza strip as long as it allows civilians to move south. This isn't working because the civilians don't want to move, or are forced to not move, or can't move, or have no place to really go to, so it's just not a good idea. Another thing you're missing IMO is that some of the people attacking Israel here aren't generally in the camp of supporting Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas or use force to free the hostages. If your starting point is either denying Oct 7th or trying to somehow excuse Hamas or even support Hamas then you are not in the same camp as these politicians and you'll never be. For the people who genuinely care and want to see an end to the war and a path forward, we need to find a way to get Hamas to yield. If there was a path that could get us there from an immediate ceasefire and end to the war I'd get behind it. It's not clear that path exists. In the absence of this path then Israel can and should do better to aid civilians but the war is not going to end.

ivape 1y ago
[flagged]
- jahewson 1y ago
  The problem is not the narrative. The problem is Hamas.
  - 1y ago

TacticalCoder 1y ago

It's good to be honest about all the horrors going on in the world, not just when they're committed by jewish people (I'm not jewish btw). For example there are recents vids of syrian muslims going door to door in villages in Syria and asking people if they are muslims or of the Druze faith: those answering they're from the Druze faith are shot on the spot. This qualify as war crimes too to me. But you don't get to read much about it in the mainstream media and many NGOs (not all) who are very active when it's about helping palestinians are keeping totally quiet on the subject too. I see much more outrage about what's happening to palestinians then what's happening to Druze people. Why is that? How comes it's so selective? Similarly: the western world is constantly reminded of colonialism. But why are the hutis getting a free pass for the 800 000 tustis they genocided 25 years ago? How comes they're not constantly reminded of what they did? Those who committed these atrocities, including regular citizens, are still alive today. And somehow we should pay because our great-great-great-great-grandfather was a colonialist? It's that dual standard, that highly selective outrage, that is very hard to stomach for me. BTW I don't recommend watching the vids of syrian muslims executing Druze people: it's hard.

fn-mote 1y ago
On one hand, I agree that honesty is important. On the other hand, this seems like whataboutism instead of honestly facing the truth. > not just when they're committed by jewish people Really skeptical that’s the filter that’s being applied here.
School-Cotton 1y ago
> Why is that? How comes it's so selective? The main reason is that Israel is materially supported by the West, so Westerners feel morally responsible for what it does. It has little to do with whether the perpetrators are Jewish or not[1]. There were gigantic protests against the Iraq war, whose main perpetrators (e.g. Bush) were not Jewish. 1: I edited this from "nothing" to "little". I concede it might have something to do with anti-Semitism, because there is some non-zero group of people whose opposition to Israel is purely motivated by anti-Semitism, but I don't get the sense that they're the majority, at least among Westerners.

School-Cotton 1y ago

Yep. "Always give your opponent a path to retreat".

cm2012 1y ago

One could certainly argue about methods, but on October 8th, what options did Israel have except invasion of Gaza?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
beepbopboopp 1y ago
This, but further more, there are 100s of comments about "the genocide" here, but almost none about what Israel should do. They have a neighbor who just committed a huge act of terror and whos standing installed political party calls for the elimination of the country. They live in a region where their ethnic group has essentially been wiped out systematically in all neighboring countries. So, "Stop the genocide" and then what? Build a bigger fence? Wait for the next episode? Im generally interested if anyone has an opinion that goes beyond leave Gaza alone and considers Israelis dilema.
- droopyEyelids 1y ago
  I’m having trouble distilling the essence of your message in a way that leaves us with any common moral ground. Would you agree that “an eye for an eye” type justice is undesirable? Because it seems like you are advocating for genocide as a response to the oct attack, going well beyond “eye for an eye”!
  - beepbopboopp 1y ago
    Boiling it down to a catch phrase does it no justice. The war is being fought in a urban area, with an armed forced who refuses ceasefire and has repeatedly said it wont rest until all isrealis are dead. Again, my comment is, if you want them to stop fighting, what would you have them do next? Im not being rhetorical.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      > refuses ceasefire and has repeatedly said it wont rest until all isrealis [sic] are dead Unfortunately, this is true of both sides, and one side seems much closer to accomplishing its goal than the other side. > what would you have them do The same question was answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080

ivape 1y ago

It’s more likely that Israel was given free rein for the timeline they wanted from the global order. Let’s say they asked for a full two years, where countries were basically under a gentleman’s gag order. Two years is enough time for the deed to be done, say whatever you need to say now, it doesn’t matter. You see that Israel has allowed aid in all of a sudden according to this contrived timeline. It’s not different than a teacher letting a bully beat down a kid for a solid 10 minutes and jumping in after with a “ok that’s enough now”. Such an actor is complicit. I’d urge people read Marin Luther King’s words on inaction.

unwise-exe 1y ago
That seems like a somewhat unlikely degree of international coordination.
- ivape 1y ago
  It’s really not. France and England are suddenly realizing the genocide, and Israel has decided that now is the time aid gets to come in. Trump just admitted there is starvation in Gaza. It’s pretty coordinated. It’s an easy ask, “we just need 14 months of silence plus or minus, then whatever”.
  - jahewson 1y ago
    The U.K. didn’t even have the same government 14 months ago. Completely different party in power. The degree of coordination you’re talking about is not just unlikely but fantastical.
    - dontlaugh 1y ago
      And yet this New New Labour has been enacting the exact same policies as the Tories before them. "Completely different" is completely wrong.
  - SR2Z 1y ago
    The "suddenly" is likely because Trump took office and started making noises about paving Gaza over to build resorts. It was much easier for these countries to look the other way when the US was notionally holding Netanyahu's leash.

davkan 1y ago

Architects of this tragedy like Anthony Blinken should absolutely not be given the opportunity to whitewash their involvement.

myvoiceismypass 1y ago
It’s lazy and disingenuous to “both sides” this mess.

supplied_demand 1y ago

I remember a lot of people predicting it would lead to this from the start. The response was often along the lines of “If you don’t support Israel’s invasion, you are pro-Hamas.” If those people had a come-to-Jesus moment, great. That said, they probably owe an apology to the people they demonized as supporting terrorism.

yieldcrv 1y ago
That's what stands out to me the most, when they change their mind that means everyone else was always right. Blaming all of Israel's chosen military strategy on Hamas invading at all is just weird. Like, there should really be a mental evaluation of everyone that repeated lines like that. Like seriously, trawl the entire internet for those people's screennames.
- forkeep 1y ago
  [dead]
pegasus 1y ago
How about this response: "Denying Israel the right to protect themselves can't help but strengthen Hamas and won't bring anything other than more suffering to all parties. Israel will do what they need to do, all we can do is hope they will stop short of sinking to the same levels as Oct 7 perpetrators, even though historically it's unlikely, and even though Israel being dragged deeper into that murderous rage pit is exactly what Hamas aims for."
- supplied_demand 1y ago
  I don’t recall many people denying Israel’s right to protect themselves against Hamas (I’m sure some did). The concern was them using it as an excuse to perpetrate the Palestinian genocide they wanted all along. That is what we now see. Your comment seems to use the familiar playbook of equating Palestinians and Hamas to muddy the waters. It is a pretty clear echo of the US’s response to 9/11. People were considered traitors if they didn’t support a full military invasion and occupation. In the end, that was clearly the wrong move.

dfxm12 1y ago

Movements that want to grow should accept people who change their minds when the situation changes, they get new data, or they learn a new perspective. The situation hasn't changed. The data is the same going back years. It's healthy to be cautious of people who join a movement under false pretenses like that. If they learned a new perspective, that's great! I just wish it didn't have to come to personally witnessing such brutality to gain a new perspective...

subpixel 1y ago

Those who wield power in Israel have calculated that they can do whatever they want at this moment and that they will enjoy functional impunity. I repudiate what they are doing, but I do not disagree with their calculation. I can imagine no scenario where any foreign power tries to actually stop them.

waterlaw 1y ago
There are numerous clips of Rabbis openly promoting the extermination of Palestinians. They use the story of Amalek from the Torah. One of the Rabbis I watched recently said "when you kill the first child it breaks your heart [...] then you start to enjoy it." _Many_ Rabbis are demanding that animals, children, women and unarmed males be "erased." IDF soldiers are bragging about killing and raping civilians on social media. One IDF soldier was complaining he hasn't shot any children under 12 yet. Netanyahu is a moderate. He's not an "extremist."
- arbitrary_name 1y ago
  Evidence please!
  - em3rgent0rdr 1y ago
    I don't know what specific rabbis the parent referring to, but Israel's PM has referenced the Amalek story: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-referen...
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    South Africa's genocide case against Israel [1] is chock full of quotes from high level Israeli officials, including Netanyahu. Check page 59. Obviously much more has been said since that claim was filed, but the nature of genocidal rhetoric is such that you can't get much more extreme. Netanyahu himself repeatedly referenced the biblical tale of Amalek [2] which reaches its climax with this passage [3] : "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." [1] - https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/South-Africa-v-Israel.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/So... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek [3] - https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm

trhway 1y ago

>new data that is the main point for me. There are a lot of claims, yet almost no verifiable data. With smartphones everywhere and having seen how war is documented say in Ukraine (and also how the propaganda lies are made there), i believe practically no claim until there is a video for it. For example the news of shooting near aid distribution centers come almost every day. How come nobody has recorded it? Especially with Hamas flying a bunch of drones there, they would undoubtedly have made such footage and published the footage around the world. At the beginning of the Gaza war i put a bit of effort to calibrate for myself how much lying is there https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882

isr 1y ago

[flagged]

frahs 1y ago
Which Palestinians has Israel been a racist project to? The Israeli Palestinians that make up 20% of the population? Or the ones living on the other side of the border? I'm not sure it's only about race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
- matusp 1y ago
  Have you actually read the link you posted? There is like dozen different ways Arab population is discriminated described there.
- isr 1y ago
  And that kind of myopic, self indulgent, genocidal/racist/apartheid -apologist tone, trying to obfuscate plain truths... that pretty much sums up much of the responses on this forum, and the US tech sector (or at least its managers) in general. Leaving aside the moral bankruptcy, it also displays a stunning and fundamental ignorance of the flow of history. How many of you will end up having to pretend, 5 years from now, that this wasn't your online username, just to be allowed to function in "polite society". It also shows how much of a self-deluded echo chamber you live in, not realizing how completely such genocidal apologist propaganda has been debunked & discarded amongst the wider population - even within the US. It all smacks of the apocryphal saying of Marie Antoinette of "let them eat cake", weeks before she has a load taken off her shoulders
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

protocolture 1y ago

Eh nuance. Accept anyone who can accept they were wrong. But it has to come with that understanding, that they were wrong. Growth and understanding are great. "I love bombing civilian populations, I just hate the consequences of bombing civilian populations" is not the amazing support that people on the ground are looking for. Gotta attack the why. Why would you support killing civilians who pose no threat to you in the name of defense. Its been the common theme of anti war sentiment for the better part of a century. "Never Again". "Lest We Forget". etc. What was all that holocaust remembrance for if not to get ahead of and prevent situations like this (While Gaza doesnt have a lot to do with the holocaust in totality it sure looks like a Warsaw Ghetto). Its kind of useless to get people along for a single issue, ending the genocide in Gaza, but for them to not understand why the things that lead up to the genocide in Gaza are bad also. Mobilising a military, into a civilian area, that has been trained from birth to resent the people in that space, that they own that space, told that the government will support them killing civilians, is going to cause this. Supporting that action is bad actually. Wanting that military, in that area, is something an Asshole would want. The phrase "Mowing the grass" was coined in like 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass Its like closing a ticket without addressing the root cause. Just gonna come up again. >but now that it has turned into a brutal siege with mass civilian casualties on a horrific scale Its been that(again) since the IDF got organized, late 2023.

rightbyte 1y ago
> Its like closing a ticket without addressing the root cause. Just gonna come up again. (Note, I agree with your post and is not criticising you.) There is something poetic about making an analogy to Jira. It somewhats sums up the fatalistic emotional indifference among many to the genocide.

eviks 1y ago

There is no reason to believe that what you've described happened since those politicians knew about the "situation change" many months before the change in position, so they don't deserve the charitable acceptance

0xbadcafebee 1y ago

Israel has been an apartheid state for decades. This has nothing to do with Hamas. Anyone who is "changing their mind" now, hasn't - it's merely no longer socially acceptable to support naked indiscriminate brutality.

Jensson 1y ago
> Israel has been an apartheid state for decades Around 20% of Israelis are Muslims and they have full rights and get to vote, so no its not an apartheid state.
- 4gotunameagain 1y ago
  If you talk to any Muslim that lives in Israel (which I have), you will realise that they only have full rights in theory. Arabs with Israeli passports are routinely searched and investigated by intelligence agencies, and in the occupied areas Arabs WITH Israeli passports are not allowed to visit certain areas (multiple sources online, including the recent Louis Theroux documentary). This is the very definition of an apartheid state.
  - tome 1y ago
    > in the occupied areas Arabs WITH Israeli passports are not allowed to visit certain areas No one with an Israeli passport is allowed to visit Area A of the West Bank, regardless of their ethnicity.
    - 4gotunameagain 1y ago
      Yeah. And? One case is an assertion of sovereignty (whether we agree or not), the other case is apartheid.
      - tome 1y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that the reason that Arabs with Israeli passports are not allowed to enter certain areas of the West Bank is because no one with an Israeli passport is allowed to enter those areas.

casey2 1y ago

I draw the line far before supporting genocide they should all be in prison.

tdeck 1y ago

Except these politicians weren't sharing their opinion, they were making a calculated statement and deliberately refusing to acknowledge all evidence to the contrary for years. As an example, selling weapons to a country that will use them to commit war crimes violates US law. So the Biden administration claimed they had seen "no evidence" of Israel committing any war crimes. A ludicrous statement to anyone bothering to pay any attention at the time. Now we know that was a lie (actually we knew it then) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/3/former-us-official-without-a-doubt-over-israels-gaza-war-crimes https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/3/former-us-official-w... So is someone like Matt Miller who spent more than a year repeating genocide propaganda redeemed now? Of course not. These people have no principles at all, and their words are meaningless. Ww must be mindful of their actions.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

NomDePlum 1y ago

Dropping 500+ lbs indiscriminately on civilian populations does not need new data. War crimes have been perpetrated from extremely early on. What's happening now is just a continuation of what was happening at the start. It's better that there is some change but lots of groups, politicians and countries cannot expect genocide to be forgotten. Realistically we are nowhere close to any of this being resolved or even stopped so I'm not even sure there is anything yet changed.

epolanski 1y ago

Problem is, beyond voicing some disdain no country seems to be willing to do anything at all towards what is at this point a blatant genocide. No sanctions, no political pressure, no stop to selling weapons. What is France doing, in practice, to help the situation?

freehorse 1y ago

I would not talk about state leaders and governments as "changing their minds". Maybe they respond to pressure; maybe the state interests change. But whatever the case, what matters is actually stopping the genocide. If their "change in mind" helps that, that's enough for me right now. However I would rather see and applaud actions than words. Words are easy. I can also do words, but a president or government have power. In the meantime, has anything changed in Israel being supplied weapons to commit said genocide? That matters more imo than what a president or prime minister says. Hopefully things go that direction and actions do follow.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

gadders 1y ago

Not a massive fan of Israel, but I can't see any other country reacting in a different way to Oct 7th. The Hamas attack has to be one of the dumbest strategic moves ever made.

throw310822 1y ago
You mean reacting with war crimes, crimes against humanity, attempted genocide? This without even mentioning the fact that, given Israel's ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine, a military attack to Israel was entirely justified.
- gadders 1y ago
  After 9/11, the US invaded 2 countries, one of which wasn't even involved. And honestly, if it had been my daughter raped and killed at a music festival, I'd have done worse.
  - throw310822 1y ago
    Ok, by this logic you're justifying whatever Hamas did, since many, many daughters of Palestinians and Gazans have been killed (and in some cases, raped) by Israel and Israeli soldiers for decades. And by the same proportion, what would be the justified reaction of Palestinians to Israel now if they had the means? Complete nuclear annihilation?
    - gadders 1y ago
      I think if Palestinians had nukes (or Iran), they would have already done this. Israel exists. That bell can't be un-rung. Palestinians could have got used to that fact and tried to build a nation, instead they want to kill Jews (and it is Jews, not just Israelis). Israel doesn't have clean hands in this, and could have done better as well. I've not heard of mass rapes by Israeli soldiers, though.
      - throw310822 1y ago

throw310822 1y ago

While I agree it's very important to welcome people who changed their minds, there are a few things that still annoy me: - the situation was actually very clear from the start - Israel has been illegally occupying, enforcing apartheid, committing war crimes for decades. You always ignored it. - I don't hear any apology about the above, nor any indication that these people won't return to their default stance of pretending all is well in Palestine as soon as the bulk of the killing stops.

pegasus 1y ago
Was it clear? Did we always ignore it? Not convinced at all. All was and is not well in Palestine, but one thing I know, it ain't cut-and-dry, and Israel going all Hamas on Palestine doesn't make it so either.
- throw310822 1y ago
  Yes, it's perfectly clear and always was. One country is illegally occupying territories outside its borders, illegally annexing them, transferring their civilian population there, ethnically cleansing the natives, enforcing apartheid against those who remain, using its soldiers to protect its citizens when they engage in pogroms against the natives, periodically bombing them, stealing their water, destroying their crops- all while enjoying full diplomatic and military support from the West. Those who resist are deemed "terrorists", condemned and vilified, and are "eliminated", together with any civilians, women and children who happen to be in the way. This has been going on for decades while the Western media ignores most of it, reporting acts of resistance and terrorism from the oppressed side as if they were motivated by ideological hatred, and in general depicting the situation as "complicated"- a position you're now repeating without a second thought.
  - pegasus 1y ago
    That's because you choose to look to only that one side of the story. Keeps things nice and tidy, it's true.

aa-jv 1y ago

Tens of thousands of people have been murdered because the justice latency of Western politicians is too damned high. The justice latency won't ever be what it needs to be until we jail our own war criminals, and that is never going to happen if we congratulate them when we should be prosecuting them.

mathiaspoint 1y ago
Why are we involved at all makes much more sense to ask and I think will lead people to the criminals faster.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

faizmokh 1y ago

Imagine thinking they don't have any idea what it was. Truly a naive perspective.

chakintosh 1y ago

That would be correct if Israel didn't routinely do the exact same war crimes they are committing right now in Gaza for the past 20 years. It's depressing to say, but what Israel is doing right now is nothing new. It's par for the course and each 2 to 3 years you see the same war crimes in gaza, like clockwork. So yes, those world leaders are as guilty as Israel, they enabled this for years.

demarq 1y ago

So if a rapist “changed” their mind on consent do we just let them go because we need more feminists? Please do not confuse changing your mind with innocence. It’s all well and good to change your mind but accountability is still required. Remember the movement grew despite them and will certainly flourish without them. Nothing will strengthen the movement more than to see these leaders brought to justice.

chemmail 1y ago

I think we should give credit where credit it due in that the people in power in Israel is using the old holocaust as an excuse to commit another. The people in power do not 100% represent the people of a nation.