7 ms·

I think your desire to participate is commendable. I don't know anything about the safety risks of collaboration to Gazans, it's very sad situation and I apprec

by plug 12y ago

I think your desire to participate is commendable. I don't know anything about the safety risks of collaboration to Gazans, it's very sad situation and I appreciate that it's very complex and possibly dangerous. I'd certainly be interested to learn more. Otherwise, I'd imagine (possibly naively) that remote mentoring would be something good. If it were possible for you to participate - would you risk repercussions for collaborating from other Israelis?

golergka 12y ago
> would you risk repercussions for collaborating from other Israelis? What? I think that most of the Israelis, including the extreme right, would agree with me and help me, given the opportunity. We hate the terrorists who have power in Gaza and keep the people as hostages and human shields, but we want to help the people themselves, if anything.
- guelo 12y ago
  The terrorists just got reelected in Israel too. I'm always amazed that Israelis believe their government's propaganda about "human shields" used to excuse terrorist acts like the bombing of UN schools.
  - Curmudgel 12y ago
    The UNRWA has found rockets in their schools on multiple occasions: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-...
    - guelo 12y ago
      There were no rockets in the UN schools that IDF shelled while thousands of people were taking shelter.
- plug 12y ago
  Thanks for your answer. Maybe my use of the word repercussions was a bit strong - I don't know much about attitudes there and I am asking out of curiosity, not as a challenge etc. In any case, it sounds like the general population are empathetic, and there would be little or no prejudice from your peers etc. These are small, but good things. So... if there were no risks of collaboration for Gazans, I assume there would be a lot more positive interaction between everyone?
  - golergka 12y ago
    If all effects of warmongering and racist propaganda (on both sides, to different extent) were to disappear too, definitely. (BTW, I may not represent an average israeli — living in TLV, more leftist, less racist part of the country.)
    - tek-cyb-org 12y ago
      But you use the same EXACT propaganda that the far right uses. 87% supported the massacre of palestinian civilians in gaza. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-support-netanyahu-and-gaza-war-despite-rising-deaths-on-both-sides/2014/07/29/0d562c44-1748-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-sup...
    - tek-cyb-org 12y ago
      But you use the same EXACT propaganda that the far right uses. 87% supported the massacre of palestinian civilians in gaza. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-support-netanyahu-and-gaza-war-despite-rising-deaths-on-both-sides/2014/07/29/0d562c44-1748-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-sup...
- kissickas 12y ago
  Isn't it illegal for Israeli citizens to enter the West Bank? [0] Would the same rules not apply for Gaza? [0] These signs are quite famous, but I know the rules on them are not always enforced - however I still assume they are being honest http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Israel-West-Bank-Area-A-Warning-Sign.png http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Isra...
  - golergka 12y ago
    It is illegal, but the sole reason is the risk for israelis. In 2000 or 2001 (I don't remember exactly) two soldiers took a wrong turn and got into a palestinian village by mistake; they were literally torn to pieces by an angry mob. If the risk would be gone, these rules would be gone too. Still, I have a couple of friends who travelled to the territories illegally, with help from their local friends — just for sightseeing. Personally, I think that they were being reckless and stupid, but it's certainly not unheard of.
  - pliny 12y ago
    It's illegal for Israeli citizens to enter zone A of the West Bank, which is a set of noncontiguous land masses within the West Bank. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Areas_in_the_Oslo_II_...
- Udik 12y ago
  "the terrorists that have power in Gaza". You start from the wrong premise. You're defining them terrorists because that allows you to dismiss their fight as "terrorism". Given that Israel is an occupying power in Gaza (yes, "in January 2012, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General stated that under resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the UN still regards Gaza to be part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory") the combatants in Gaza are freedom fighters.
  - golergka 12y ago
    There are several things wrong with your argument. Usually, I don't respond to things like this — but I have come to learn that commenters on Hacker News are unusually reasonable and intelligent people, so I decided to make an effort and explain all things wrong with this statement. (These are separate and atomic arguments, which don't depend on each other logically). 1. You assume that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are mutually exclusive definitions, while one of them refers to the organisation methods and the other to organisation goals. Deliberately (this is very important word) attacking civilians and trying to increase civilian death toll in order to create a state of terror is, by definition, a terrorist tactic. 2. You go from "UN regards" to "objective fact" pretty easily. This implies that you hold UN as organisation to be of highest authority and consider it's opinion true by default. This approach needs some backup. All other things considered, you could write it as "UN regards them as freedom fighters" (which UN doesn't). Or "by UN logic". 3. You assume that these organisation goal is freedom from perceived (not debating this point now) occupation. However, that's not what they state. These organisations state that their goal is (1) destruction of state of Israel and (2) murder of all jews, primarily living in these territories (but not limited to them). If these organisations succeeded in their stated goals, they, of course, would get "freedom from occupation" (as they perceive it), but it would only be a byproduct of their mail goal, which can not be described other than genocide. And finally, just out of respect for anonymous commenter on the site that I keep in a very high regard. Just in case you really want to keep a reasonable, logical, healthy discussion, and not a flame war. When you try to put a positive spin on these terrorist organisations, 99% of israelis wouldn't even consider responding to you. Because when you start telling people that organisations with motto "kill all jews" are misunderstood good guys, you don't seem like a guy worth having a discussion with.

by plug 12y ago

golergka 12y ago

> would you risk repercussions for collaborating from other Israelis? What? I think that most of the Israelis, including the extreme right, would agree with me and help me, given the opportunity. We hate the terrorists who have power in Gaza and keep the people as hostages and human shields, but we want to help the people themselves, if anything.

guelo 12y ago
The terrorists just got reelected in Israel too. I'm always amazed that Israelis believe their government's propaganda about "human shields" used to excuse terrorist acts like the bombing of UN schools.
- Curmudgel 12y ago
  The UNRWA has found rockets in their schools on multiple occasions: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-...
  - guelo 12y ago
    There were no rockets in the UN schools that IDF shelled while thousands of people were taking shelter.
plug 12y ago
Thanks for your answer. Maybe my use of the word repercussions was a bit strong - I don't know much about attitudes there and I am asking out of curiosity, not as a challenge etc. In any case, it sounds like the general population are empathetic, and there would be little or no prejudice from your peers etc. These are small, but good things. So... if there were no risks of collaboration for Gazans, I assume there would be a lot more positive interaction between everyone?
- golergka 12y ago
  If all effects of warmongering and racist propaganda (on both sides, to different extent) were to disappear too, definitely. (BTW, I may not represent an average israeli — living in TLV, more leftist, less racist part of the country.)
  - tek-cyb-org 12y ago
    But you use the same EXACT propaganda that the far right uses. 87% supported the massacre of palestinian civilians in gaza. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-support-netanyahu-and-gaza-war-despite-rising-deaths-on-both-sides/2014/07/29/0d562c44-1748-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-sup...
  - tek-cyb-org 12y ago
    But you use the same EXACT propaganda that the far right uses. 87% supported the massacre of palestinian civilians in gaza. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-support-netanyahu-and-gaza-war-despite-rising-deaths-on-both-sides/2014/07/29/0d562c44-1748-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-sup...
kissickas 12y ago
Isn't it illegal for Israeli citizens to enter the West Bank? [0] Would the same rules not apply for Gaza? [0] These signs are quite famous, but I know the rules on them are not always enforced - however I still assume they are being honest http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Israel-West-Bank-Area-A-Warning-Sign.png http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Isra...
- golergka 12y ago
  It is illegal, but the sole reason is the risk for israelis. In 2000 or 2001 (I don't remember exactly) two soldiers took a wrong turn and got into a palestinian village by mistake; they were literally torn to pieces by an angry mob. If the risk would be gone, these rules would be gone too. Still, I have a couple of friends who travelled to the territories illegally, with help from their local friends — just for sightseeing. Personally, I think that they were being reckless and stupid, but it's certainly not unheard of.
- pliny 12y ago
  It's illegal for Israeli citizens to enter zone A of the West Bank, which is a set of noncontiguous land masses within the West Bank. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Areas_in_the_Oslo_II_...
Udik 12y ago
"the terrorists that have power in Gaza". You start from the wrong premise. You're defining them terrorists because that allows you to dismiss their fight as "terrorism". Given that Israel is an occupying power in Gaza (yes, "in January 2012, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General stated that under resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the UN still regards Gaza to be part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory") the combatants in Gaza are freedom fighters.
- golergka 12y ago
  There are several things wrong with your argument. Usually, I don't respond to things like this — but I have come to learn that commenters on Hacker News are unusually reasonable and intelligent people, so I decided to make an effort and explain all things wrong with this statement. (These are separate and atomic arguments, which don't depend on each other logically). 1. You assume that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are mutually exclusive definitions, while one of them refers to the organisation methods and the other to organisation goals. Deliberately (this is very important word) attacking civilians and trying to increase civilian death toll in order to create a state of terror is, by definition, a terrorist tactic. 2. You go from "UN regards" to "objective fact" pretty easily. This implies that you hold UN as organisation to be of highest authority and consider it's opinion true by default. This approach needs some backup. All other things considered, you could write it as "UN regards them as freedom fighters" (which UN doesn't). Or "by UN logic". 3. You assume that these organisation goal is freedom from perceived (not debating this point now) occupation. However, that's not what they state. These organisations state that their goal is (1) destruction of state of Israel and (2) murder of all jews, primarily living in these territories (but not limited to them). If these organisations succeeded in their stated goals, they, of course, would get "freedom from occupation" (as they perceive it), but it would only be a byproduct of their mail goal, which can not be described other than genocide. And finally, just out of respect for anonymous commenter on the site that I keep in a very high regard. Just in case you really want to keep a reasonable, logical, healthy discussion, and not a flame war. When you try to put a positive spin on these terrorist organisations, 99% of israelis wouldn't even consider responding to you. Because when you start telling people that organisations with motto "kill all jews" are misunderstood good guys, you don't seem like a guy worth having a discussion with.