5 ms·

The problem is not the narrative. The problem is Hamas.

by jahewson 1y ago

kalberg6429 1y ago
[flagged]
- YZF 1y ago
  I think us Zionists are pretty consistent and what we are saying agrees with the objective reality. It's the anti-zionists who are cherry-picking and can't form a coherent argument other than "colonialism" or something and are excusing the agency of Hamas and the Gazans. It's true that Netanyahu is and was opposed to a Palestinian state and that dividing the Palestinians between Hamas and the PA was strategic in that regard. However he misjudged Hamas as not having motivation or ability to attack Israel. A by the way is that since 2007 Israel has attacked Hamas in Gaza and Hamas attacked Israel as well so it's not exactly like they were pals. It was more of the devil we (thought we) know kind of situation. But there is a previous there which is the failure of the Oslo accords due to Hamas' suicide bombing campaign on Israel. Hamas bombed the peace process to death (alongside with hundreds of random civilians) and also directly cause the rise of the right in Israel and the change of opinion in the Israeli public from accepting the idea of a two state solution to a belief that Israel can not accept that solution. Dividing the Palestinians as a strategy came after the Palestinians showed Israelis that living side by side is impossible. And if the Israelis needed further proof we got the Oct 7th attack. It's also worth mentioning that short of re-taking Gaza (which we see is not simple) Israel didn't really have a lot of choices once Hamas took and established itself in Gaza. Maybe the right thing to do was to retake Gaza immediately in 2007. I'm sure the world, including you, would scream bloody murder occupation if that happened. Otherwise there's not a lot that could have been done. The civilian aid that made its way into Gaza and Hamas' hands was also a result of international pressure on Israel under the idea that if there was some sort of stability/prosperity in Gaza that would lead to peace. What happened in practice is Hamas channeled all of that into its military efforts and we see where that led us.
  - kalberg6429 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 1y ago
      Whoa. I just replied to you upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718657) before seeing this, but you really can't post like this to Hacker News and we ban accounts that do. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules.
  - oa335 1y ago
    >Hamas bombed the peace process to death (alongside with hundreds of random civilians) and also directly cause the rise of the right in Israel and the change of opinion in the Israeli public from accepting the idea of a two state solution to a belief that Israel can not accept that solution. Dividing the Palestinians as a strategy came after the Palestinians showed Israelis that living side by side is impossible. Why would the Israelis support Hamas if they were the faction that was attacking them? Wouldn't it have made more sense to support the PA even more?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- FabHK 1y ago
  Your quotes are not in the article cited, which does say though that > According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
- dang 1y ago
  > You Zionists are really not even putting any effort into your hasbara anymore. Please omit swipes and flamebait from your posts, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. This is also in your interest, since you can always make your substantive points without it and it will make your comments more persuasive. edit: I appreciate that you edited that bit out of your comment, but once there are replies, you should make it clear how you edited it. Otherwise you deprive the replies (like this one) of their original context.
  - kelthuzad 1y ago
    Why is an entire comment like his with solid evidence flagged because of 1 mild line, but the parent comment is itself a baseless 1-liner flamebait with zero effort to substantiate but is allowed to stay up? That's not even the worst - some usual suspects are literally using Nazi rhetoric to engage in denial or justification of Genocide, but they get a pass. The line is drawn at "swipes and flamebaits"? Pro-Genocide ? Fine. No swipes and flamebaits tho!
    - Jensson 1y ago
      The rules permits posts that are incorrect or unsubstantiated, downvotes handles that. You can see the post was downvoted, so its working as intended. The rules however do not permit personal attacks and name-calling. You can say the same things without the name calling or attacks.
    - dang 1y ago
      I agree that the parent comment was a bad HN comment. But it didn't clear the threshold for a mod reply. If we tried to reply to all bad (for HN) comments, we'd run into impossibilities: (1) we'd have to post an order of magnitude more replies, which we can't do; and (2) we'd run to a buzzsaw of "why do you reply to this bad thing and not that other bad thing over there". What made the difference between that comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718039) and the one I replied to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718268) was the pejorative 'you', snark, and name-calling in "You Zionists are really not even putting any effort into your hasbara anymore." (this line has since been edited out by the GP commenter). That is a dividing line where we can post mod comments because (1) there aren't so many such posts, so it's feasible, and (2) attacks like that have a particularly bad effect on threads. > Pro-Genocide ? Fine. No swipes and flamebaits tho! I hear you, but these two things are on different levels. To explain what I mean, let's assume that I completely agree with you on this topic. Ok? We agree that genocide is wrong and bad—far more than somebody being snarky in an internet comment, right? So wtf is wrong with the mods if they penalize one and not the other? Is "pejorative 'you', snark, and name-calling" worse than genocide? Of course not; only a monster would say so. The answer is that we're not trying to exclude wrongness and badness in the comments here. I know that sounds bad, but suppose I said "the mods' job is to decide what's true and good and then impose it on everyone else". You wouldn't want that, right? what if we disagreed? Certainly the community as a whole would not want that. Rather it's your job (i.e. the commenters) to work that out through discussion and argument. The mods' job is to try to keep that discussion and argument respectful* between the players. When we see people crossing that line, we respond. Otherwise we don't respond, even when someone says something which we feel is both wrong and bad, because it's not our place to impose that on the community. (Btw I posted a bit more on this theme here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44719138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44719138) * For practical purposes "respectful" means in keeping with the guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
vFunct 1y ago
[flagged]
aa-jv 1y ago
The problem is Likud, which transferred money to Hamas and bolstered it in an attempt to divide the West Bank from Gaza Palestinians.

The problem is not the narrative. The problem is Hamas.

kalberg6429 1y ago

[flagged]

YZF 1y ago
I think us Zionists are pretty consistent and what we are saying agrees with the objective reality. It's the anti-zionists who are cherry-picking and can't form a coherent argument other than "colonialism" or something and are excusing the agency of Hamas and the Gazans. It's true that Netanyahu is and was opposed to a Palestinian state and that dividing the Palestinians between Hamas and the PA was strategic in that regard. However he misjudged Hamas as not having motivation or ability to attack Israel. A by the way is that since 2007 Israel has attacked Hamas in Gaza and Hamas attacked Israel as well so it's not exactly like they were pals. It was more of the devil we (thought we) know kind of situation. But there is a previous there which is the failure of the Oslo accords due to Hamas' suicide bombing campaign on Israel. Hamas bombed the peace process to death (alongside with hundreds of random civilians) and also directly cause the rise of the right in Israel and the change of opinion in the Israeli public from accepting the idea of a two state solution to a belief that Israel can not accept that solution. Dividing the Palestinians as a strategy came after the Palestinians showed Israelis that living side by side is impossible. And if the Israelis needed further proof we got the Oct 7th attack. It's also worth mentioning that short of re-taking Gaza (which we see is not simple) Israel didn't really have a lot of choices once Hamas took and established itself in Gaza. Maybe the right thing to do was to retake Gaza immediately in 2007. I'm sure the world, including you, would scream bloody murder occupation if that happened. Otherwise there's not a lot that could have been done. The civilian aid that made its way into Gaza and Hamas' hands was also a result of international pressure on Israel under the idea that if there was some sort of stability/prosperity in Gaza that would lead to peace. What happened in practice is Hamas channeled all of that into its military efforts and we see where that led us.
- kalberg6429 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 1y ago
    Whoa. I just replied to you upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718657) before seeing this, but you really can't post like this to Hacker News and we ban accounts that do. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules.
- oa335 1y ago
  >Hamas bombed the peace process to death (alongside with hundreds of random civilians) and also directly cause the rise of the right in Israel and the change of opinion in the Israeli public from accepting the idea of a two state solution to a belief that Israel can not accept that solution. Dividing the Palestinians as a strategy came after the Palestinians showed Israelis that living side by side is impossible. Why would the Israelis support Hamas if they were the faction that was attacking them? Wouldn't it have made more sense to support the PA even more?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
FabHK 1y ago
Your quotes are not in the article cited, which does say though that > According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
dang 1y ago
> You Zionists are really not even putting any effort into your hasbara anymore. Please omit swipes and flamebait from your posts, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. This is also in your interest, since you can always make your substantive points without it and it will make your comments more persuasive. edit: I appreciate that you edited that bit out of your comment, but once there are replies, you should make it clear how you edited it. Otherwise you deprive the replies (like this one) of their original context.
- kelthuzad 1y ago
  Why is an entire comment like his with solid evidence flagged because of 1 mild line, but the parent comment is itself a baseless 1-liner flamebait with zero effort to substantiate but is allowed to stay up? That's not even the worst - some usual suspects are literally using Nazi rhetoric to engage in denial or justification of Genocide, but they get a pass. The line is drawn at "swipes and flamebaits"? Pro-Genocide ? Fine. No swipes and flamebaits tho!
  - Jensson 1y ago
    The rules permits posts that are incorrect or unsubstantiated, downvotes handles that. You can see the post was downvoted, so its working as intended. The rules however do not permit personal attacks and name-calling. You can say the same things without the name calling or attacks.
  - dang 1y ago
    I agree that the parent comment was a bad HN comment. But it didn't clear the threshold for a mod reply. If we tried to reply to all bad (for HN) comments, we'd run into impossibilities: (1) we'd have to post an order of magnitude more replies, which we can't do; and (2) we'd run to a buzzsaw of "why do you reply to this bad thing and not that other bad thing over there". What made the difference between that comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718039) and the one I replied to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718268) was the pejorative 'you', snark, and name-calling in "You Zionists are really not even putting any effort into your hasbara anymore." (this line has since been edited out by the GP commenter). That is a dividing line where we can post mod comments because (1) there aren't so many such posts, so it's feasible, and (2) attacks like that have a particularly bad effect on threads. > Pro-Genocide ? Fine. No swipes and flamebaits tho! I hear you, but these two things are on different levels. To explain what I mean, let's assume that I completely agree with you on this topic. Ok? We agree that genocide is wrong and bad—far more than somebody being snarky in an internet comment, right? So wtf is wrong with the mods if they penalize one and not the other? Is "pejorative 'you', snark, and name-calling" worse than genocide? Of course not; only a monster would say so. The answer is that we're not trying to exclude wrongness and badness in the comments here. I know that sounds bad, but suppose I said "the mods' job is to decide what's true and good and then impose it on everyone else". You wouldn't want that, right? what if we disagreed? Certainly the community as a whole would not want that. Rather it's your job (i.e. the commenters) to work that out through discussion and argument. The mods' job is to try to keep that discussion and argument respectful* between the players. When we see people crossing that line, we respond. Otherwise we don't respond, even when someone says something which we feel is both wrong and bad, because it's not our place to impose that on the community. (Btw I posted a bit more on this theme here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44719138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44719138) * For practical purposes "respectful" means in keeping with the guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

vFunct 1y ago

[flagged]

aa-jv 1y ago

The problem is Likud, which transferred money to Hamas and bolstered it in an attempt to divide the West Bank from Gaza Palestinians.