Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war(cpj.org)
cpj.org
Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war
https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict
904 comments
That's a bad explanation because it relies on an assumption about how the press in Palestine are operating on the ground and I'm guessing no one on hackernews actually has that info.
We don't know that reporters are rushing into danger or hanging out where the danger is going to be.
In fact, a lot of the "reporters" who we've been watching were never war reporters to begin with. Motaz, for instance was an aspiring travel photographer. Bisan was a filmmaker. Wael was the cheif of Al-Jazera in Gaza.
They're (most likely) not seeking out death and war, they're just reporting on the condition of their city, of their people.
It also ignores 75 years of history. CPJ stated this was the deadliest conflict for journalists in the past 30 years. Reporters Without Borders has accused Israel of intentionally targeting journalists. Human Rights Watch signed a letter stating the US needed to put pressure on Israel to stop killing journalists. Amnesty international says Israel must be investigated for the war crime of killing journalists.
We don't know that reporters are rushing into danger or hanging out where the danger is going to be.
In fact, a lot of the "reporters" who we've been watching were never war reporters to begin with. Motaz, for instance was an aspiring travel photographer. Bisan was a filmmaker. Wael was the cheif of Al-Jazera in Gaza.
They're (most likely) not seeking out death and war, they're just reporting on the condition of their city, of their people.
It also ignores 75 years of history. CPJ stated this was the deadliest conflict for journalists in the past 30 years. Reporters Without Borders has accused Israel of intentionally targeting journalists. Human Rights Watch signed a letter stating the US needed to put pressure on Israel to stop killing journalists. Amnesty international says Israel must be investigated for the war crime of killing journalists.
This has also been one of the deadliest wars for civilians in general. Also when you’re using such a loose definition of journalist obviously the deaths would be greater.
Are you saying this war has a higher civilian casualty ratio that other wars? Sadly history shows that civilians have been casualties of war at high rates compared to combatants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
That article suggests the average ratio to be 1:1, so yes this war has a higher ratio.
The US defined combatant in their latest wars as any male killed over the age of 14, so the ratio is a bit up to how people choose to define combatant vs civilian.
The wikipedia article should be read as a starting point in understanding how extremely unreliable those numbers are, and how much it depend on how people define combatant and civilian.
The wikipedia article should be read as a starting point in understanding how extremely unreliable those numbers are, and how much it depend on how people define combatant and civilian.
The article also gives examples of many major wars, with the majority of examples have numbers of civilians killed usually greater than combatants.
So, as horrific as this war has been, I don't think the claim that this is "one of the the deadliest wars for civilians in general" holds up.
So, as horrific as this war has been, I don't think the claim that this is "one of the the deadliest wars for civilians in general" holds up.
Israel estimated 12,000 Hamas at a time when Hamas figures claimed 26,000 dead. That's pretty close to 1:1.
Part of the trouble is Israel can't prove the 12,000, and no one actually believes the Hamas figures are legitimate. But there are not better figures available for either number. So 1:1 for Gaza is the best we can estimate.
Part of the trouble is Israel can't prove the 12,000, and no one actually believes the Hamas figures are legitimate. But there are not better figures available for either number. So 1:1 for Gaza is the best we can estimate.
[deleted]
I don't think they said that it was the highest, they just said "one of." From that list, 2:1 or 3:1 is certainly quite deadly.
The original post made it sound unusual that civilians are dying in such high numbers. It is unfortunately not unusual that civilians die at higher numbers than combatants during war, the opposite is often true.
> This has also been one of the deadliest wars for civilians in general.
I don't think that is a true statement. Obviously it is bad for civilians in any war, but there are other conficts that have been much worse.
I don't think that is a true statement. Obviously it is bad for civilians in any war, but there are other conficts that have been much worse.
> This has also been one of the deadliest wars for civilians in general.
That's not actually true. The ratio is similar to other wars. Civilians die in war, they die a lot. War sucks. But Gaza is not unusually deadly compared to other wars.
That's not actually true. The ratio is similar to other wars. Civilians die in war, they die a lot. War sucks. But Gaza is not unusually deadly compared to other wars.
Compare it to the Russia/Ukraine war. Not even close.
In any case Israel is not conducting a war, they are conducting a massacre.
In any case Israel is not conducting a war, they are conducting a massacre.
The double standards are pretty breath-taking - Russia's conduct in Ukraine was labelled a genocide, but Israel's conduct is comparatively white-washed.
While the initial cause for war is obviously different, that does not justify war crimes.
I don't think western-brained folks realise how bad this looks to the rest of the world. For example to India, and the amount damage it does to the West's reputation.
While the initial cause for war is obviously different, that does not justify war crimes.
I don't think western-brained folks realise how bad this looks to the rest of the world. For example to India, and the amount damage it does to the West's reputation.
yyyk(1)
ars(1)
> Wael was the cheif of Al-Jazera in Gaza.
I find it vanishingly unlikely that all the things that have happened to this man and his family are just tragic coincidence. He was clearly targeted.
I find it vanishingly unlikely that all the things that have happened to this man and his family are just tragic coincidence. He was clearly targeted.
Another explanation is that what Gaza authorities define as a journalist/healthcare worker or aid worker, might be very broad. There are reports of UNRWA employees taking part in the terror attack on Israel on 10/7.
Alternatively, you can watch this documentary where journalists wearing identifying gear away from the action were shot by a sniper during the peaceful "March of Return" (2018). These were the "Palestinian Gandhis" Israel supporters keep talking about. They were massacred.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZSaKYmP2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZSaKYmP2s
> peaceful "March of Return"
How is trying to storm a sovereign border peaceful? Pretty sure if a mob stormed any normal government border they would be shot.
How is trying to storm a sovereign border peaceful? Pretty sure if a mob stormed any normal government border they would be shot.
> Pretty sure if a mob stormed any normal government border they would be shot.
I'd think they'd point their weapons at the ones actually storming not the journalists
Unless you're saying the IDF didn't point and just fired aimlessly in the march's general direction?
I'd think they'd point their weapons at the ones actually storming not the journalists
Unless you're saying the IDF didn't point and just fired aimlessly in the march's general direction?
Sovereign Border? are you recognizing a State of Palestine and it's borders? last I checked none of those existed, so therefore your argument of storming a sovereign border is null and void. They marched near the walls of their concentration camp, no one stormed anything and they were clearly shot at from a distance. I am appaled that so many "intelligent" people just regurgitate what they learned from the idiot box instead of being truly informed. The photos and videos are there for you to see... go look, read...
> How is trying to storm a sovereign border peaceful?
It’s not. But it’s not grounds for lethal force. Audible warnings, warning shots and non-lethal rounds were the right moves.
It’s not. But it’s not grounds for lethal force. Audible warnings, warning shots and non-lethal rounds were the right moves.
Someone trying to invade your country to kill people is not grounds for lethal force?
You can't possibly be serious.
You can't possibly be serious.
> Someone trying to invade your country to kill people is not grounds for lethal force?
Sure it is. But that’s not what you described—the border guards did not have enough information to conclude—as judge, jury and executioner—that they were trying to kill people.
Sure it is. But that’s not what you described—the border guards did not have enough information to conclude—as judge, jury and executioner—that they were trying to kill people.
Again, what border? between which countries? is there an army on the other side? are you serious? The United States does not recognize the State of Palestine, and therefore there is no border is there? so these people where fenced into an area that is occupied by Israel. If they tried to get out, they were trying to escape their Concentration Camp.
The marchers had a legal right of return under international law and the sympathies of the world (except US and Israel).
OP: This is a meaningful rabbit hole to explore.
The rate of journalists murdered in Gaza is much higher than other similar situations.
The Geneva convention requires citizens and journalists to not be targeted. [1]
Human Rights Watch [2] and Amnesty International [3] are reporting journalists are actively being targeted. Today, someone's phone can be tracked to target them.
The LA Times also had a piece outlining the journalists experiences [4]
[1] https://safety.rsf.org/appendix-i-protection-of-journalists-...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-israeli-strikes-on-journa...
[3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/lebanon-deadl...
[4] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-21/gaza-journa...
The rate of journalists murdered in Gaza is much higher than other similar situations.
The Geneva convention requires citizens and journalists to not be targeted. [1]
Human Rights Watch [2] and Amnesty International [3] are reporting journalists are actively being targeted. Today, someone's phone can be tracked to target them.
The LA Times also had a piece outlining the journalists experiences [4]
[1] https://safety.rsf.org/appendix-i-protection-of-journalists-...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-israeli-strikes-on-journa...
[3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/lebanon-deadl...
[4] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-21/gaza-journa...
That healthcare workers comparison does indeed not make much sense, it should be healthcare workers involved in retrieving the injured, which are indeed at very high risk (even though theoretically they shouldn't be targeted)
> One possible explanation is that journalists have a much higher probability of being close to where the fighting is
Not closer than the people actually doing the fight. Look at this plot: https://imgur.com/a/SWNSYOn
For the curve of journalists killed to bend this way, my rough estimates point it's necessary for the journalist have ~3x the odds of being targeted when compared to a Hamas fighter, or ~75x more when compared to random Gaza inhabitant (~75:1 vs. ~25:1 odds against random person). I posted in detail my estimation method here, but it got downvoted and now sits close to the bottom of this discussion, but you can read it here:
Part I: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603300
Part II: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603311
Part III (Python source code): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603322
Not closer than the people actually doing the fight. Look at this plot: https://imgur.com/a/SWNSYOn
For the curve of journalists killed to bend this way, my rough estimates point it's necessary for the journalist have ~3x the odds of being targeted when compared to a Hamas fighter, or ~75x more when compared to random Gaza inhabitant (~75:1 vs. ~25:1 odds against random person). I posted in detail my estimation method here, but it got downvoted and now sits close to the bottom of this discussion, but you can read it here:
Part I: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603300
Part II: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603311
Part III (Python source code): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39603322
Or another explanation could be that you do not want the world to learn about your activities.
10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high.
Would be interesting to see what the death rates for journalists, medics, soldiers, etc was in afghan war, iraq war, vietnam war, etc. I highly doubt any reaches 10%.
Would be interesting to see what the death rates for journalists, medics, soldiers, etc was in afghan war, iraq war, vietnam war, etc. I highly doubt any reaches 10%.
> 10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high.
Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. That makes comparing casualty rates incredibly difficult. (To my knowledge, nobody else has done this so comprehensively. Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated. Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.)
Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. That makes comparing casualty rates incredibly difficult. (To my knowledge, nobody else has done this so comprehensively. Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated. Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.)
What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets? The point of any fighter using human shields is that the enemy doesn't fire because they don't want to hurt the human shields. If they're willing to kill the human shields, they don't help you, so why bother with them?
This apparent myth rubs me the same way as "there's no food because Hamas is stealing it" - really? All of it? For what purpose?
This apparent myth rubs me the same way as "there's no food because Hamas is stealing it" - really? All of it? For what purpose?
It's just noise. Scaling this to other examples: if there was a school shooter inside a school, should the school be bombed? The answer is a resounding no, but with Gaza it turns into a yes.
This is why the common rhetoric given from politicians and jingoists is that all of them are guilty and that no one is innocent. Using the same example, the workers and students of that school are de facto responsible because they allowed that school shooter to enter the school.
This is why the common rhetoric given from politicians and jingoists is that all of them are guilty and that no one is innocent. Using the same example, the workers and students of that school are de facto responsible because they allowed that school shooter to enter the school.
> if there was a school shooter inside a school, should the school be bombed?
If there were multiple school shooters inside one school, and they were coördinating with other shooters across the country, that becomes a valid trade off. (In a classic solo shooter scenario, everyone you want to save is inside the building. There is no external context.) In the same way that a hijacked plane, post 9/11, is a valid target for being shot down.
If there were multiple school shooters inside one school, and they were coördinating with other shooters across the country, that becomes a valid trade off. (In a classic solo shooter scenario, everyone you want to save is inside the building. There is no external context.) In the same way that a hijacked plane, post 9/11, is a valid target for being shot down.
Oh, I thought they're used as human shields.
How many school shooters would need to be in a Florida High School before you think it's worthwhile to bomb it? Just a rough number
How many school shooters would need to be in a Florida High School before you think it's worthwhile to bomb it? Just a rough number
The scales are so completely different that that analogy is just done in bad faith.
Much as I asked the other commenter, how many school shooters would need to be in the school before we believe it's valid?
Let's change the analogy: ISIS terrorists take over the MIT campus. Inside the university are 50 armed terrorists. Is it valid to now bomb the university? What if there are 100 terrorists?
There is no issue with scale here. No matter how much it scales, you won't reach a point where there is an ethical position that argues for the mass murder of people that we actually view as people. It only becomes ethical when we dehumanize the people affected.
Let's change the analogy: ISIS terrorists take over the MIT campus. Inside the university are 50 armed terrorists. Is it valid to now bomb the university? What if there are 100 terrorists?
There is no issue with scale here. No matter how much it scales, you won't reach a point where there is an ethical position that argues for the mass murder of people that we actually view as people. It only becomes ethical when we dehumanize the people affected.
So what do you think would happen if terrorists took over the MIT campus, students sympathized with them, rockets were launched from it, and the US police had no presence there and very sparse intelligence?
> students sympathized with them
So we're back to 'all of them are guilty'
The shame here is what you described is literally Hamas' reasoning for carrying out the October attacks. Dehumanization, hyper aggression, and hiding it all behind 'the opposition is inherently evil, guilty by association, so we are fundamentally justified'.
So we're back to 'all of them are guilty'
The shame here is what you described is literally Hamas' reasoning for carrying out the October attacks. Dehumanization, hyper aggression, and hiding it all behind 'the opposition is inherently evil, guilty by association, so we are fundamentally justified'.
Maybe about 3000 terrorists? Is this a Beslan like situation?
Yes, there a lot more civilians killed in Gaza every day than you could fit into a school. What Israel does is much, much worse.
> What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets
Getting international opinion to turn against Israel.
Thats the way Hamas can survive this, getting enough pressure on Israel to make them stop.
Getting international opinion to turn against Israel.
Thats the way Hamas can survive this, getting enough pressure on Israel to make them stop.
One, Hamas isn't doing this. No proof beyond the inevitable effects of fighting in one of the most densly populated areas on this planet.
Two, Israel is doing an incredible good job at putting the pressure on themselves right now.
Two, Israel is doing an incredible good job at putting the pressure on themselves right now.
> One, Hamas isn't doing this
Sinwar himself said it :
Then a courier arrived with a message from Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, saying, in effect: Don’t worry, we have the Israelis right where we want them.
Hamas’s fighters, the Al-Qassam Brigades, were doing fine, the upbeat message said. The militants were ready for Israel’s expected assault on Rafah, a city on Gaza’s southern edge. High civilian casualties would add to the worldwide pressure on Israel to stop the war, Sinwar’s message said, according to people informed about the meeting.
Source https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-...
Sinwar himself said it :
Then a courier arrived with a message from Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, saying, in effect: Don’t worry, we have the Israelis right where we want them.
Hamas’s fighters, the Al-Qassam Brigades, were doing fine, the upbeat message said. The militants were ready for Israel’s expected assault on Rafah, a city on Gaza’s southern edge. High civilian casualties would add to the worldwide pressure on Israel to stop the war, Sinwar’s message said, according to people informed about the meeting.
Source https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-...
> One, Hamas isn't doing this.
You sound confident, stating it like it's a fact. Care to share your sources?
You sound confident, stating it like it's a fact. Care to share your sources?
>Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated.
I'm wondering by what metric do you define success.
I'm wondering by what metric do you define success.
A lot of civilians being killed by the enemy driving global condemnation.
Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side? If so, what were the outcomes of these?
> Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side?
Every false flag operation designed to rally support for a conflict.
Every false flag operation designed to rally support for a conflict.
I'm not quite clear on what you're implying here, but in any case I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation.
> I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation
During the Chinese civil war, the Maoists let the Nationalists take a shellacking when convenient. And while I wouldn’t say America was conducive to civilian deaths on “our” side in Vietnam or Afghanistan, it clearly wasn’t something we optimised for: our priority was protecting our troops.
Hamas is a paramilitary. It serves its own forces. The civilians of Palestine aren’t “its” people; they’re a battlefield element.
During the Chinese civil war, the Maoists let the Nationalists take a shellacking when convenient. And while I wouldn’t say America was conducive to civilian deaths on “our” side in Vietnam or Afghanistan, it clearly wasn’t something we optimised for: our priority was protecting our troops.
Hamas is a paramilitary. It serves its own forces. The civilians of Palestine aren’t “its” people; they’re a battlefield element.
Apologies for my ignorance, but aren't Hamas literally the government of Gaza? Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government?
> aren't Hamas literally the government of Gaza?
The Kims are the government of North Korea. That doesn’t mean they serve its people.
> Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government?
Difficult to tell. Hamas did away with elections in their 2007 coup [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
The Kims are the government of North Korea. That doesn’t mean they serve its people.
> Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government?
Difficult to tell. Hamas did away with elections in their 2007 coup [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
Up until quite recently in history, the vast majority of countries have been controlled by unelected autocrats, and as you say, some still are. But I don't recall that ever bothered us from associating conflicts with the countries as a whole.
Mukden incident 1931. False flag operation that lead to the invasion of Manchuria by Japan.
Gaza civilians are not on the Hamas “side”.
Hamas is the sovereign in Gaza. It’s literally their elected government.
You should check when the last election was. And even if the majority supports Hamas, it is NEVER a justification to target civilians.
72% isn't some[0].
Civilians aren't targeted just collateral damage.
0:https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palesti....
Civilians aren't targeted just collateral damage.
0:https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palesti....
If you select target liberally enough, classify combatants on liberal enough criteria and use munition liberal enough, as shown by IDF reports, numbers and whistelblower accounts, the colleteral damage becomes the target.
And hell, you are really surprised after everything Israel did in Gaza so far, that support for Hamas rises? Really? I suggest to whatch the first season of Andor for an in-depth explanation of why a hard crackdown is usually only hardening resistence.
And hell, you are really surprised after everything Israel did in Gaza so far, that support for Hamas rises? Really? I suggest to whatch the first season of Andor for an in-depth explanation of why a hard crackdown is usually only hardening resistence.
Elected in 2006. Half the population weren't even alive then. Over then thousand dead children the last months also have had no say even if there had been a recent election. Don't try to blame this on the victims.
I mean, they have managed to hurt israel's position on the world stage & economy quite significantly relative to their actual military power.
Hardly seems worth it to me, but i guess you could argue that is success of a sort.
Hardly seems worth it to me, but i guess you could argue that is success of a sort.
The first time in Palestinian history that they took and held Israeli territory after 1948 for any length of time.
> Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire.
This has not stopped the IDF
This has not stopped the IDF
Yes, and if you look up the rules of war you will see that if you base your operations there the enemy is allowed to attack it. Besides a desire to not kill your civilian population that's another reason countries don't do that. But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
>But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
Neither does the IDF by all available evidence.
Neither does the IDF by all available evidence.
IDF cares for their civilians more, and to protect them they unfortunately have to accept Palestinian civilian casualties, there are no other way.
yes, right. Lately they preemptively killed civilians when they were in a line for flour, because they were caring for civilians, and therefore prevented them from overeating.
After so many dead Palestinians whether combatants or not, compared to the number of killed Israelis, there is no other way? Laughable. Don't buy into IDF propaganda too much.
You have to think about the exploitability of your strategy. Both the IDF and Hamas optimize for a low exploitability number (though, Israel, really, you need to stagger your religious holidays, this is the second time this kind of thing has happened...), having a "kill count limiter" (in a value less than the mid single digit millions) is obviously a bad strategy and is extremely exploitable.
> But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
Are these civilians not their families and communities? According to Hamas does death for their cause not earn you points for your glorious after life? You have to understand their beliefs to understand how they justify their actions. I have no doubt what they are doing is sensible to them else why would they do it?
Are these civilians not their families and communities? According to Hamas does death for their cause not earn you points for your glorious after life? You have to understand their beliefs to understand how they justify their actions. I have no doubt what they are doing is sensible to them else why would they do it?
Protected sites lose their protected status under the law of armed conflict if they are used to hide/support combatants. Agree or disagree with Israel's targeting policies; that's still the law and has been for decades.
If the law permits thousands of innocents to be slaughtered, then maybe it needs to change.
THe reason these "international laws" are accepted by majority of modern nations is because they are somewhat reasonable and allow parties to military conflicts to wage military campaigns while attempting to minimize civilian casualties.
If the laws are rewritten to state "you are never allowed to attack a hospital or a school. No exception", then what will follow is one party to the war will put their military installation insides schools and hospitals and the other party to the war to the war will say "these geneva conventions are unreasonable and we wont follow it"
In other words, nobody would respect Geneva conventions if they are unreasonable
If the laws are rewritten to state "you are never allowed to attack a hospital or a school. No exception", then what will follow is one party to the war will put their military installation insides schools and hospitals and the other party to the war to the war will say "these geneva conventions are unreasonable and we wont follow it"
In other words, nobody would respect Geneva conventions if they are unreasonable
Regardless of any second-order effects, the truth on the ground is that many thousands of innocents are suffering, and I have a hard time seeing any societal configuration where civilians can be legally blown up or starved en masse as anything but immoral. If a terrorist government is embedded in your population centers, it should not be legal to raze those population centers in retribution.
How do you distinguish "retribution" from eliminating the threat posed by (in your words) a terrorist government?
What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow the terrorist government to continue to operate unimpeded, which enables attacks on your own citizens?
There's no population on the planet that would accept that.
What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow the terrorist government to continue to operate unimpeded, which enables attacks on your own citizens?
There's no population on the planet that would accept that.
Israel will lose most of their international support if they raze Gaza and starve the population.
Israel is already doing that (for valid reasons IMO) and it hasn’t lost support; if anything, Israel’s position with other Arab countries has never been better. They too would like to see Hamas gone.
So the UN Security Council vote for resolutions against Israel with only 1 dissenting vote (USA) is not losing international support? Or the cavalcade of countries around the world coming out in support of ending the occupation at the ICJ with only 3 countries in support of Israel versus the nearly 60 countries against? Not sure where you get your news, but you may want to consider another source. Would love to hear your valid reasons... but please before giving them to me, how about reading about the Zionism movement (est 1897) the balfour declaration (1917) the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (an ac of terrorism that killed 91 people - mostly british army officers) and the Nakba (1948) the Deir Yassin Masacre - and the many others... and maybe we can have an intelligent discourse.
That's true of many wars I think?
Doesn't your argument boil down to "wars are not moral"?
When the Iraqis and the US were besieging and pounding Mosul, was there a lot of discussion about the suffering of the innocents? Did the US or anyone else air drop supplies to them or send aid trucks into Mosul? Maybe- but I don't recall.
Let's not forget that ISIS was thousands of miles from the US and the US was under no direct threat. Contrast that to an enemy much stronger in numbers and arms vs. ISIS 15 minutes from your cities.
This is just evidence to what is the "standard" in how wars are waged in similar situations.
Before the Geneva convention, and obviously after the Geneva convention, some countries/armies would just fire artillery into the besieged city and drop bombs and starve them until there's no more resistance. This would be the Russian or Syrian approach which they copy-pasted many times in the Syrian civil war and in Ukraine (by both sides). Israel is not doing that.
All that said, I think Israel should strive within reason to facilitate aid delivery to civilians. It is doing that but it can probably do more. There are some portions of the Israeli public that think that after Oct 7th the "enemy" should be brought to their knees by any tactic but I don't think that's the majority and I don't think that's what the decision makers are pursuing. There are challenges in getting aid to people in a war zone where random people pop up with RPGs and shoot things or steal the aid for military purposes. If something goes wrong, like it did the other day, and many people died, Israel takes flak (essentially for trying to get aid into those problematic places).
The Hamas, being the elected government of Gaza, and having hoarded provisions for their prolonged battle, is also responsible for the well being of their citizens. They don't give a damn but we shouldn't forget they're responsible (in many ways) for the current situation.
In terms of "razing" there is extensive use of bulldozers, bombs and demolition to neutralize mines, booby traps, tunnel shafts. Expose tunnels. Remove positions the enemy can utilize. This is why the IDF has managed to take over most of Gaza with relatively low casualties (still a lot but a lot less than was expected). I'm ok with this morality in this context, minimizing my casualties in a conflict that the other side insists on continuing. There is a fine line there and the line is international law (which generally allows these tactics).
Doesn't your argument boil down to "wars are not moral"?
When the Iraqis and the US were besieging and pounding Mosul, was there a lot of discussion about the suffering of the innocents? Did the US or anyone else air drop supplies to them or send aid trucks into Mosul? Maybe- but I don't recall.
Let's not forget that ISIS was thousands of miles from the US and the US was under no direct threat. Contrast that to an enemy much stronger in numbers and arms vs. ISIS 15 minutes from your cities.
This is just evidence to what is the "standard" in how wars are waged in similar situations.
Before the Geneva convention, and obviously after the Geneva convention, some countries/armies would just fire artillery into the besieged city and drop bombs and starve them until there's no more resistance. This would be the Russian or Syrian approach which they copy-pasted many times in the Syrian civil war and in Ukraine (by both sides). Israel is not doing that.
All that said, I think Israel should strive within reason to facilitate aid delivery to civilians. It is doing that but it can probably do more. There are some portions of the Israeli public that think that after Oct 7th the "enemy" should be brought to their knees by any tactic but I don't think that's the majority and I don't think that's what the decision makers are pursuing. There are challenges in getting aid to people in a war zone where random people pop up with RPGs and shoot things or steal the aid for military purposes. If something goes wrong, like it did the other day, and many people died, Israel takes flak (essentially for trying to get aid into those problematic places).
The Hamas, being the elected government of Gaza, and having hoarded provisions for their prolonged battle, is also responsible for the well being of their citizens. They don't give a damn but we shouldn't forget they're responsible (in many ways) for the current situation.
In terms of "razing" there is extensive use of bulldozers, bombs and demolition to neutralize mines, booby traps, tunnel shafts. Expose tunnels. Remove positions the enemy can utilize. This is why the IDF has managed to take over most of Gaza with relatively low casualties (still a lot but a lot less than was expected). I'm ok with this morality in this context, minimizing my casualties in a conflict that the other side insists on continuing. There is a fine line there and the line is international law (which generally allows these tactics).
Hamas was elected in 2006. Hamas was initially funded by Israel - yes they are an Israeli creation to weaken the Palestinian Authority. Let that sink in for a minute. Over 50% of Gaza's population was born after this election. Of the remaining, there was barely 40% turnout and Hamas barely won. But yet, you cling to the narrative fed to you that they are all guilty (which means you ascribe to collective punishment - a war crime).
The infrastructure destruction has been going on for decades. Israel routinely destroys Palestinian homes prior to October 7th. Is that Hamas? when they do it in the West Bank where Hamas is not active, is that Hamas too? How about the Thousands of Palestinian Men, Women and Children arrested without charge or trial and help in inhuman detention camps, is that Hamas? or are you maybe just trying to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed United States political, financial and military support so that you can sleep better at night.... it was Hamas is getting old. At some point you need to wake up and understand that the real boogeyman is Israel. They are not your friend
The infrastructure destruction has been going on for decades. Israel routinely destroys Palestinian homes prior to October 7th. Is that Hamas? when they do it in the West Bank where Hamas is not active, is that Hamas too? How about the Thousands of Palestinian Men, Women and Children arrested without charge or trial and help in inhuman detention camps, is that Hamas? or are you maybe just trying to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed United States political, financial and military support so that you can sleep better at night.... it was Hamas is getting old. At some point you need to wake up and understand that the real boogeyman is Israel. They are not your friend
You're just totally wrong on the facts.
Hamas is not an Israeli creation. I don't know where you're getting that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas#The_founding_...
Hamas was not "initially funded by Israel". References?
Support for violence and Hamas amongst Palestinians is not "my narrative". It's truth supported by numerous surveys. If you want to get some color go look for the YouTube channel that interviews Palestinians on the street on topical questions over the last decade or so.
Hamas enjoys broad support and would get re-elected, that's why we didn't see any elections after 2006, because the PA would have lost to Hamas. Also the attack of Hamas on Oct 7th has broad support and previous to Oct 7th support for the use of violence against Israel was similarly broad.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/palestinian-pol...
"The polls shows 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching its October 7 onslaught, in which some 1,200 people in Israel, mostly civilians, were murdered and over 240 were taken hostage. A large majority believes Hamas’s claims that it acted to “defend” the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and win the release of Palestinian security prisoners. Only 10% say they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the terrorists committing atrocities."
https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8...
"The poll found that 53% of Palestinians believe Hamas is “most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people,” while only 14% prefer Abbas’ secular Fatah party." (2021)
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1217758546/hamas-support-pale...
I can give you 100's of more surveys over the last decade. It might be true that Hamas' support today in Gaza is waning given the circumstances but probably rising in the west bank. Palestinians were celebrating Oct 7th.
Hamas is active in the West Bank. You're also wrong about that. In fact the previous war in Gaza was a result of Hamas actions from the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gush_Etzion_kidnapping_an...
Anyways we are talking about Gaza, how did this get to the West Bank? Your statements about the west bank are also wrong. Israel demolishes houses of terrorists that murder Israeli civilians. That's pretty much the only "routinely destroys homes" I can think of. Israel doesn't arrest children and put them in inhuman(e?) detention camps, where do you get that stuff?
Israel isn't perfect by any means, but the bad guys in this story are the Palestinians. There's no excuse for things like suicide bombers blowing up busses, malls, and restaurants. There's no excuse of Oct 7th. They chose indiscriminate violence as their way of settling the conflict and refused any peaceful attempts to settle it. You're the one that needs to wake up and at the very least learn the facts of this conflict before you make up your mind. EDIT: Also no excuse to firing 10's of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israeli population centers. All these things are war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel's actions as a whole are not.
Hamas is not an Israeli creation. I don't know where you're getting that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas#The_founding_...
Hamas was not "initially funded by Israel". References?
Support for violence and Hamas amongst Palestinians is not "my narrative". It's truth supported by numerous surveys. If you want to get some color go look for the YouTube channel that interviews Palestinians on the street on topical questions over the last decade or so.
Hamas enjoys broad support and would get re-elected, that's why we didn't see any elections after 2006, because the PA would have lost to Hamas. Also the attack of Hamas on Oct 7th has broad support and previous to Oct 7th support for the use of violence against Israel was similarly broad.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/palestinian-pol...
"The polls shows 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching its October 7 onslaught, in which some 1,200 people in Israel, mostly civilians, were murdered and over 240 were taken hostage. A large majority believes Hamas’s claims that it acted to “defend” the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and win the release of Palestinian security prisoners. Only 10% say they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the terrorists committing atrocities."
https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8...
"The poll found that 53% of Palestinians believe Hamas is “most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people,” while only 14% prefer Abbas’ secular Fatah party." (2021)
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1217758546/hamas-support-pale...
I can give you 100's of more surveys over the last decade. It might be true that Hamas' support today in Gaza is waning given the circumstances but probably rising in the west bank. Palestinians were celebrating Oct 7th.
Hamas is active in the West Bank. You're also wrong about that. In fact the previous war in Gaza was a result of Hamas actions from the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gush_Etzion_kidnapping_an...
Anyways we are talking about Gaza, how did this get to the West Bank? Your statements about the west bank are also wrong. Israel demolishes houses of terrorists that murder Israeli civilians. That's pretty much the only "routinely destroys homes" I can think of. Israel doesn't arrest children and put them in inhuman(e?) detention camps, where do you get that stuff?
Israel isn't perfect by any means, but the bad guys in this story are the Palestinians. There's no excuse for things like suicide bombers blowing up busses, malls, and restaurants. There's no excuse of Oct 7th. They chose indiscriminate violence as their way of settling the conflict and refused any peaceful attempts to settle it. You're the one that needs to wake up and at the very least learn the facts of this conflict before you make up your mind. EDIT: Also no excuse to firing 10's of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israeli population centers. All these things are war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel's actions as a whole are not.
[deleted]
samatman(1)
This a common misunderstanding of the international laws of war, and international law in general.
In our personal lives the government can compel us to follow the law with the threat of overwhelming force; if I break the law I will be arrested, and regardless of how much I fight back I will not be able to stop it. Laws in our everyday lives are like commands from a parent to a child; the government, as the parent, can and will compel the child's obedience.
International law is different. If a state breaks international law, there is no entity willing or capable of using overwhelming force to compel obedience. States have armies and some have nuclear weapons; the amount of force required to compel a state to behave a certain way is huge, and generating that force is extremely costly. When states break international law there are consequences, but at the end of the day violence is generally not on the table.
Effective international law is a balancing act. An international standard of warfare that placed extremely strict standards on when it was permissible to kill civilians would make fighting a war significantly harder. No state would obey such a law because winning the war is the absolute highest priority, making the law worthless. Instead, laws of war try to outlaw actions that don't affect the ability of a country to win a war. No chemical or biological weapons (high explosives are more effective), humane treatment of prisoners (discourages the enemy fighting to the death), and no killing civilians unless in the pursuit of a military objective (if it's not in pursuit of a military objective, then it's a waste of resources). The goal of the laws of war is to prevent unnecessary violence, not prevent violence altogether. It's a case of "perfect is the enemy of good."
In our personal lives the government can compel us to follow the law with the threat of overwhelming force; if I break the law I will be arrested, and regardless of how much I fight back I will not be able to stop it. Laws in our everyday lives are like commands from a parent to a child; the government, as the parent, can and will compel the child's obedience.
International law is different. If a state breaks international law, there is no entity willing or capable of using overwhelming force to compel obedience. States have armies and some have nuclear weapons; the amount of force required to compel a state to behave a certain way is huge, and generating that force is extremely costly. When states break international law there are consequences, but at the end of the day violence is generally not on the table.
Effective international law is a balancing act. An international standard of warfare that placed extremely strict standards on when it was permissible to kill civilians would make fighting a war significantly harder. No state would obey such a law because winning the war is the absolute highest priority, making the law worthless. Instead, laws of war try to outlaw actions that don't affect the ability of a country to win a war. No chemical or biological weapons (high explosives are more effective), humane treatment of prisoners (discourages the enemy fighting to the death), and no killing civilians unless in the pursuit of a military objective (if it's not in pursuit of a military objective, then it's a waste of resources). The goal of the laws of war is to prevent unnecessary violence, not prevent violence altogether. It's a case of "perfect is the enemy of good."
Exactly. International laws are guidelines more than rules.
ummm, no... they are actual laws. and you have to agree to them before joining the UN
Hamas is free to hand out uniforms to its soldiers to prevent civilians getting killed. They’re also free to build barracks instead of tunnels underneath schools to house their fighters. Until they do so civilians will continue to suffer.
The very reason these laws are there is to protect civilians. A hospital can more or less safely operate in a war zone if both parties play by the rules and actually care for their people. If you exploit these very rules for military advantage, then why not just put red crosses on your attack helicopters as well? There aren’t too many laws to war, but this just fundamentally makes sense.
GP is wrong. There is the law of proportionality in the Geneva Conventions which requires "that the expected incidental harm is not excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."
>The word to pay attention to here is "military advantage" - i.e. "military value" of the target. Seeing a "hamas" go into a hospital or a rocket being fired from it doesn't give Israel the green light to bomb it. While there is no well-defined metric or number that defines proportionality - it is safe to say that Israelis don't meet the necessary criteria by any reasonable measure. Establishing the necessary proportionality to justify an attack on a hospital, refugee camp or shelter is needless to say, extraordinarily high.
Take the recent ICC arrest warrants as an example. The ICC just ruled that Russian targeting of Ukraine's power grid constituted a war crime.“During this timeframe, there was an alleged campaign of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations, which were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine,” the court said. "The ICC said the attacks led by Koblylash and Sokolov on Ukraine’s electrical grid caused civilian harm which was excessive when compared with any expected military advantage". This even though power infrastructure has clear military value.
Now look at the siege and attack on Shifa hospital. If Shifa was a vital command-and-control hub where the head of Hamas operated from , or if it contained a major ammo depot - that may constitute sufficient military value to justify the incidental deaths caused by attacking a hospital. A calendar and a couple of AKs behind an MRI machine doesn't does not. Moreover the fact that Israelis had to go in and spend weeks on a fishing expedition to dig up (or make up) the sufficient evidence to justify the attack after-the-fact, proves that they didn't have the necessary justification to stage the attack in the first place. Thus the attack on the hospital violates the Geneva conventions and is a war crime. (But don't hold your breath for any action from the ICC - They are extremely biased and beholden to US and NATO interests).
At this point the mountain of evidence is simply undeniable. When we compare the intensity of atrocity committed by the Israelis, to those in other recent conflicts - Mosul, Homs, Mariupol, Grozny, Yemen- the israelis sails past them all with a healthy margin. Israelis killed more children in a few months than the syrians, russians did over many years. In terms of civillian/combatant ratio and the sheer intensity of civillian deaths in a short time-frame- I am not aware of any national force committing similar attrocity in the 21st century (Maybe the Ethiopian civil war, but I don't know, i am not versed on that conflict) If this was Russia or Iran we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>The word to pay attention to here is "military advantage" - i.e. "military value" of the target. Seeing a "hamas" go into a hospital or a rocket being fired from it doesn't give Israel the green light to bomb it. While there is no well-defined metric or number that defines proportionality - it is safe to say that Israelis don't meet the necessary criteria by any reasonable measure. Establishing the necessary proportionality to justify an attack on a hospital, refugee camp or shelter is needless to say, extraordinarily high.
Take the recent ICC arrest warrants as an example. The ICC just ruled that Russian targeting of Ukraine's power grid constituted a war crime.“During this timeframe, there was an alleged campaign of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations, which were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine,” the court said. "The ICC said the attacks led by Koblylash and Sokolov on Ukraine’s electrical grid caused civilian harm which was excessive when compared with any expected military advantage". This even though power infrastructure has clear military value.
Now look at the siege and attack on Shifa hospital. If Shifa was a vital command-and-control hub where the head of Hamas operated from , or if it contained a major ammo depot - that may constitute sufficient military value to justify the incidental deaths caused by attacking a hospital. A calendar and a couple of AKs behind an MRI machine doesn't does not. Moreover the fact that Israelis had to go in and spend weeks on a fishing expedition to dig up (or make up) the sufficient evidence to justify the attack after-the-fact, proves that they didn't have the necessary justification to stage the attack in the first place. Thus the attack on the hospital violates the Geneva conventions and is a war crime. (But don't hold your breath for any action from the ICC - They are extremely biased and beholden to US and NATO interests).
At this point the mountain of evidence is simply undeniable. When we compare the intensity of atrocity committed by the Israelis, to those in other recent conflicts - Mosul, Homs, Mariupol, Grozny, Yemen- the israelis sails past them all with a healthy margin. Israelis killed more children in a few months than the syrians, russians did over many years. In terms of civillian/combatant ratio and the sheer intensity of civillian deaths in a short time-frame- I am not aware of any national force committing similar attrocity in the 21st century (Maybe the Ethiopian civil war, but I don't know, i am not versed on that conflict) If this was Russia or Iran we wouldn't be having this conversation.
*>When we compare the intensity of atrocity committed by the Israelis, to those in other recent conflicts - Mosul, Homs, Mariupol, Grozny, Yemen- the israelis sails past them all with a healthy margin.
According to Ukrainian sources, at least 25,000 people died in the siege of Mariupol over the course of less than three months. The current conflict in Gaza is grave, but it is not incomparable or unprecedented.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63536564
According to Ukrainian sources, at least 25,000 people died in the siege of Mariupol over the course of less than three months. The current conflict in Gaza is grave, but it is not incomparable or unprecedented.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63536564
I remember 10k being the more frequently quoted number. But maybe that needs to be revisited - I was more naive about the degree of underreporting on ukrainian casualties. Maybe the truth is closer to 25k - which would make it comparable to Gaza. It will be difficult/impossible to know the real number given the reported cremations, the fact that the city is under Russian control, and that lot of the missing include residents who fled/were-transferred to Russia. The Gaza numbers are likely higher than official report given all the missing who are still under the rubble.
But the burden of proof rests on the army that attacks said protected site. They need to show that it hid or supported enemy combatants. And to date, no such proof has been provided. Show me proof of the expansive military complex with their large cache of weapons and hidden combatants and I will gladly shut-up.
The Israeli video footage showing of Hamas rocket launch sites inside Gaza schools are faked? Ditto the phone recordings of Hamas ordering ambulances for military transport those are fake as well? Do you believe Hamas follows “laws of war”? When they fire rockets at civilian populations? Are the Hamas rocket attack videos faked? Once the other side starts to bomb your cities and kill your civilians what should they expect will happen to their cities? War is an ugly brutal contest to terrorize or kill the other side to stop resisting. We try to have rules to control war but history shows once those rules start to get violated by one side you should not expect others to stick to them.
All that said I think Israel will be responsible for lots of broken innocent civilian lives and broken infrastructure when this is all done and their best policy in Gaza will be like USA had towards Germany and Japan after WW2.
All that said I think Israel will be responsible for lots of broken innocent civilian lives and broken infrastructure when this is all done and their best policy in Gaza will be like USA had towards Germany and Japan after WW2.
As it turns out, you can't say everyone is a noncombatant in an area, and then place combatants there and think everyone is ok with that.
This is unfounded.
I'm still waiting on a single shred of evidence to drop about the AP building from 2-3 years ago https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe...
> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
Even if Hamas was fighting from hospitals and schools that is not how this works. Israel would be required to give those schools and hospitals warning first which they have not been doing.
And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?
I'm still waiting on a single shred of evidence to drop about the AP building from 2-3 years ago https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe...
> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
Even if Hamas was fighting from hospitals and schools that is not how this works. Israel would be required to give those schools and hospitals warning first which they have not been doing.
And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?
Israel has ordered hospitals to evacuate, e.g.: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-resc...
I think you're generally wrong on the "they have not been doing" comment. Israel has been giving warnings, and those warnings were intentionally being ignored to maximize the damage to Israel's reputation. But if you have some comprehensive data here I'd be interested in seeing it.
From my observation the pattern has been Israel giving warnings/ordering evacuations with the response being "it can't be done" only to end with significantly more difficult conditions.
Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals) which was again pushed back on as "impossible" or physically prevented by Hamas which in turn caused increased civilian casualty rates and the eventual almost full evacuation under significantly more difficult conditions.
The use of the terminology "refugee camps" is also confusing. Some of what the media refers to as "refugee camps" are permanent settlements, effectively cities, where the population consists of many 1948 refugees. Not what most people think about when they hear "refugee camps". As to why heavy bombs are used I'm not an expert but potentially to penetrate deeper and there might be other reasons.
All that said, I think it should be acknowledged that some of the methods Israel is using are likely to try and achieve some psychological advantage against the enemy. I don't think this that's necessarily a violation of international law given that warnings were given. It's within the realm of what I would call a military objective (demoralizing the enemy forces and destroying their infrastructure).
I think you're generally wrong on the "they have not been doing" comment. Israel has been giving warnings, and those warnings were intentionally being ignored to maximize the damage to Israel's reputation. But if you have some comprehensive data here I'd be interested in seeing it.
From my observation the pattern has been Israel giving warnings/ordering evacuations with the response being "it can't be done" only to end with significantly more difficult conditions.
Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals) which was again pushed back on as "impossible" or physically prevented by Hamas which in turn caused increased civilian casualty rates and the eventual almost full evacuation under significantly more difficult conditions.
The use of the terminology "refugee camps" is also confusing. Some of what the media refers to as "refugee camps" are permanent settlements, effectively cities, where the population consists of many 1948 refugees. Not what most people think about when they hear "refugee camps". As to why heavy bombs are used I'm not an expert but potentially to penetrate deeper and there might be other reasons.
All that said, I think it should be acknowledged that some of the methods Israel is using are likely to try and achieve some psychological advantage against the enemy. I don't think this that's necessarily a violation of international law given that warnings were given. It's within the realm of what I would call a military objective (demoralizing the enemy forces and destroying their infrastructure).
I didn't say that Israel has never ordered an evacuation. I pushed back on the commenter who stated that finding a militant in a hospital or school makes it a valid target.
> From my observation
Well from Human Rights Watches observation:
> Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate them, nor seen any information that would justify attacks on Gaza hospitals. When a journalist at a news conference showing video footage of damage to the Qatar Hospital sought additional information to verify voice recordings and images presented, the Israeli spokesperson said, “our strikes are based on intelligence.” Even if accurate, Israel has not demonstrated that the ensuing hospital attacks were proportionate.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-ho...
> I don't think
Again, giving a warning doesn't make it ok to bomb a school. Notice how the HRW quote mentions the attack not being "proportionate"? That's why I seek advice from the experts.
> From my observation
Well from Human Rights Watches observation:
> Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate them, nor seen any information that would justify attacks on Gaza hospitals. When a journalist at a news conference showing video footage of damage to the Qatar Hospital sought additional information to verify voice recordings and images presented, the Israeli spokesperson said, “our strikes are based on intelligence.” Even if accurate, Israel has not demonstrated that the ensuing hospital attacks were proportionate.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-ho...
> I don't think
Again, giving a warning doesn't make it ok to bomb a school. Notice how the HRW quote mentions the attack not being "proportionate"? That's why I seek advice from the experts.
"Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
We've seen some evidence that hospitals are used outside their humanitarian function.
It's true that even if the hospital loses it's protection that does not mean that it's ok to just go ahead and level it because of the presence of a single combatant (and that hasn't happened, I'm pretty sure e.g. no hospital in Gaza suffered a direct bombing attack e.g. but it may be ok under certain circumstances to completely level a hospital that is used for military purposes if enough warning has been given), the proportionality principles still applies. Proportionate has a very specific meaning in terms of the Geneva convention which most people aren't familiar with. I agree that the IDFs actions must be proportionate in that sense. The IDF claims its actions are. The IDF has lawyers that evaluate actions against international law.
Human Rights Watch isn't necessarily an unbiased observer here. Naturally they would not have access to the IDF's intelligence and the IDF can be justified in not sharing its intelligence to protect its sources.
My basic take is why is it beneficial for the IDF to waste time and resources attacking hospitals that have no military use? It's bad PR, it's wasted efforts that could be directed somewhere else. Doesn't make sense. It's possible it could be "more careful" in avoiding those in certain situations. Is it the highest item in the priority list (e.g. above the security of IDF soldiers), probably not.
We've seen some evidence that hospitals are used outside their humanitarian function.
It's true that even if the hospital loses it's protection that does not mean that it's ok to just go ahead and level it because of the presence of a single combatant (and that hasn't happened, I'm pretty sure e.g. no hospital in Gaza suffered a direct bombing attack e.g. but it may be ok under certain circumstances to completely level a hospital that is used for military purposes if enough warning has been given), the proportionality principles still applies. Proportionate has a very specific meaning in terms of the Geneva convention which most people aren't familiar with. I agree that the IDFs actions must be proportionate in that sense. The IDF claims its actions are. The IDF has lawyers that evaluate actions against international law.
Human Rights Watch isn't necessarily an unbiased observer here. Naturally they would not have access to the IDF's intelligence and the IDF can be justified in not sharing its intelligence to protect its sources.
My basic take is why is it beneficial for the IDF to waste time and resources attacking hospitals that have no military use? It's bad PR, it's wasted efforts that could be directed somewhere else. Doesn't make sense. It's possible it could be "more careful" in avoiding those in certain situations. Is it the highest item in the priority list (e.g. above the security of IDF soldiers), probably not.
> [It] Doesn't make sense
It does when your enemy is Amalek.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-africa-is...
It does when your enemy is Amalek.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-africa-is...
There's certainly been no shortage of rhetoric on the Israeli side to exact revenge for Oct 7th. Some of it very extreme. The events of that day traumatized Israelis.
I don't think most Israelis really think the Palestinians are the biblical "Amalek". More like the children of "Ishmael", i.e. "cousins". They likely do view Hamas specifically as an entity that should be annihilated. i.e. all 40k or so Hamas combatants killed or captured. But even if we take this at face value it's still stupid to waste energy on a place that's known to not be a military threat while there are active military threats. First finish the military threat.
I don't think most Israelis really think the Palestinians are the biblical "Amalek". More like the children of "Ishmael", i.e. "cousins". They likely do view Hamas specifically as an entity that should be annihilated. i.e. all 40k or so Hamas combatants killed or captured. But even if we take this at face value it's still stupid to waste energy on a place that's known to not be a military threat while there are active military threats. First finish the military threat.
When it comes to international law, i think human rights groups are more like the "prosecuter" than a neutral party. They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.
When HRW says Israel is bad, i think its a bit like when a cop says the person they arrested is bad. It may very well be true, but i wouldn't put it as a sure thing until some sort of trial is done.
P.s. in regards to "porportionate" - keep in mind that has a special definition in international law that is different from how people use it in normal conversation.
When HRW says Israel is bad, i think its a bit like when a cop says the person they arrested is bad. It may very well be true, but i wouldn't put it as a sure thing until some sort of trial is done.
P.s. in regards to "porportionate" - keep in mind that has a special definition in international law that is different from how people use it in normal conversation.
> They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.
You are quite right, Israel's interest is to kill and displace the Palestinians, crush them as a people. Very few human right groups would have an interest that aligns with that.
You are quite right, Israel's interest is to kill and displace the Palestinians, crush them as a people. Very few human right groups would have an interest that aligns with that.
Israel would and has claimed otherwise.
Maybe you don't believe them, but if the goal is to determine truth its probably better to start from a place of assuming innocence and change views based on evidence, not the other way around.
Maybe you don't believe them, but if the goal is to determine truth its probably better to start from a place of assuming innocence and change views based on evidence, not the other way around.
That’s why they moved out of Gaza wholesale, removing settlers, just to have Hamas rise to power and attack?
You seem to have left out the 17 year blockade of Gaza by Israel, the intentional starvation of the population. The occasional bombings and "targeted" airstrikes... sure they just randomly attacked Israel one day because they felt like it...
That's not the order things occurred. When Israel left Gaza it left it to the Palestinian authority and it wasn't blockaded (there was some partial blockade but it was practically open). The present walls and barriers around Gaza were put in place after the disengagement as a response to specific attacks coming out of Gaza.
The previous restrictions on Gaza were also a result of attacks coming out of Gaza on Israeli civilians.
If the population was starving while Hamas, the government of Gaza, managed to smuggle in RPGs, assault rifles, lathes, trucks, rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns etc. then clearly the issue is a matter of their priorities, not Israel. Hamas stole concrete to make tunnels, used water pipes to make rockets, was the elected government, and is completely responsible if its population is starving (which I don't think was true anyways). You're also somehow conveniently leaving Egypt out of the picture. Why should Israel feed its enemies (and allow them to work in Israel, and give them water and power). Egypt could have done all that. But Hamas didn't only pick a fight with Israel- they also collaborated with ISIS in Sinai and picked a fight with Egypt.
They "randomly attacked Israel one day" because they are consumed by hate and religious fanaticism. Just listen to what they say. If they chose peace, they'd get peace, Israel has no interest in randomly attacking them.
The previous restrictions on Gaza were also a result of attacks coming out of Gaza on Israeli civilians.
If the population was starving while Hamas, the government of Gaza, managed to smuggle in RPGs, assault rifles, lathes, trucks, rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns etc. then clearly the issue is a matter of their priorities, not Israel. Hamas stole concrete to make tunnels, used water pipes to make rockets, was the elected government, and is completely responsible if its population is starving (which I don't think was true anyways). You're also somehow conveniently leaving Egypt out of the picture. Why should Israel feed its enemies (and allow them to work in Israel, and give them water and power). Egypt could have done all that. But Hamas didn't only pick a fight with Israel- they also collaborated with ISIS in Sinai and picked a fight with Egypt.
They "randomly attacked Israel one day" because they are consumed by hate and religious fanaticism. Just listen to what they say. If they chose peace, they'd get peace, Israel has no interest in randomly attacking them.
what is "Israel"? are you referring to the people of Israel? Do you believe that 9 million Israelis have interest of killing and displacing Palestinians and crush them as a people?
and what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
and what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
Going by Israeli TV, Telegram channels and polls, unfortunately it really does seem like a large proportion of Israelis think of Palestinians as sub-human bugs to be crushed.
Already we've seen settlers building an "outpost" inside Gaza, while Israeli soldiers watch on. Meanwhile, Israeli civilians block aid to starving children, again while the IDF watch.
Already we've seen settlers building an "outpost" inside Gaza, while Israeli soldiers watch on. Meanwhile, Israeli civilians block aid to starving children, again while the IDF watch.
and any reason you decided not to answer the second part of the question?
Do you mean this part?
> what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Is it "how to Palestinians feel about Israelis?". If so, I don't know, but I can imagine how I might feel if I'd been dehumanised my entitre life; lived under brutal occupation/blockade my entire life, seen siblings carted off to be tortured in Israeli dungeons, had my father shot in front of me etc. Perhaps Israel should stop stealing land and homes, and stop their institutionalised dehumanisation of Palestinians; many Israelis seem to need de-radicalising.
> what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Is it "how to Palestinians feel about Israelis?". If so, I don't know, but I can imagine how I might feel if I'd been dehumanised my entitre life; lived under brutal occupation/blockade my entire life, seen siblings carted off to be tortured in Israeli dungeons, had my father shot in front of me etc. Perhaps Israel should stop stealing land and homes, and stop their institutionalised dehumanisation of Palestinians; many Israelis seem to need de-radicalising.
can you link me to such polls?
Sure: https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/sites/socsci-english.ta.... This is a very interesting poll, and it clearly shows that Arabs want peace, while Israeli Jews do not.
In reference to the same poll: "A vast majority of Jewish Israelis believe that the IDF is using an appropriate amount or not enough force" [0]. "Nearly 58 percent of respondents in one poll said they think the IDF is using “too little firepower” in Gaza" [1]
[0] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-783849
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/polls-show-broad-support-in-is...
In reference to the same poll: "A vast majority of Jewish Israelis believe that the IDF is using an appropriate amount or not enough force" [0]. "Nearly 58 percent of respondents in one poll said they think the IDF is using “too little firepower” in Gaza" [1]
[0] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-783849
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/polls-show-broad-support-in-is...
You are aware of Human Rights Watch’s history with Israel, right? Here’s a taste:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fu...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fu...
> the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with the "pro-Israel pressure groups."
What's wrong with that? Any honest observer will have battles with groups who want to spin the truth.
I'd say one of the biggest problems in the US political system right now is that we don't have enough organizations willing to battle against our own partisan pressure groups (without siding with any of them).
Perhaps that's what's troubling: so many of our organizations have taken sides that it's difficult to understand an organization that hasn't.
As for raising money in Saudi Arabia: they were raising money from private supporters there, not the Saudi government. Do you think no one in SA supports human rights?
Or, if the suggestion is that HRW is siding with the Saudis, take a look at:
https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia
What's wrong with that? Any honest observer will have battles with groups who want to spin the truth.
I'd say one of the biggest problems in the US political system right now is that we don't have enough organizations willing to battle against our own partisan pressure groups (without siding with any of them).
Perhaps that's what's troubling: so many of our organizations have taken sides that it's difficult to understand an organization that hasn't.
As for raising money in Saudi Arabia: they were raising money from private supporters there, not the Saudi government. Do you think no one in SA supports human rights?
Or, if the suggestion is that HRW is siding with the Saudis, take a look at:
https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia
Oh, you sweet summer child.
Who do you think "private supporters" are in Saudi Arabia?
And no, I don't think anyone with anything resembling power or wealth in Saudi Arabia supports human rights.
HRW execs admit via email to the editor in chief of a nationally respected magazine that they raise money by bragging how tough they are on Israel. And then they are tough on Israel, and you think it's a principled stance. Maybe they just have profitable principles, I dunno.
Who do you think "private supporters" are in Saudi Arabia?
And no, I don't think anyone with anything resembling power or wealth in Saudi Arabia supports human rights.
HRW execs admit via email to the editor in chief of a nationally respected magazine that they raise money by bragging how tough they are on Israel. And then they are tough on Israel, and you think it's a principled stance. Maybe they just have profitable principles, I dunno.
HRW should be "tough" on any nation that violates people's human rights. That's their mission.
And it seems like they are. They're tough on Saudi Arabia too.
And it seems like they are. They're tough on Saudi Arabia too.
Sure. But it’s hard to ignore that they are far harsher on Israel than any other country.
But don’t take it from me. Take that from a senior editor who left HRW after 13 years: https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-se...
But don’t take it from me. Take that from a senior editor who left HRW after 13 years: https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-se...
Her objections include: "HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks...included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’"
And "political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence."
It sounds like she wanted their coverage to be more one-sided. Explaining "the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" is perfectly valid.
And "political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence."
It sounds like she wanted their coverage to be more one-sided. Explaining "the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" is perfectly valid.
> Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians
Yes, they have repeatedly dropped leaflets telling civilians to move to "safe" areas - and have repeatedly proceeded to bomb those areas.
> including those "camps" you mention
Like the one where an Israeli tank drove over inhabited tents?
Yes, they have repeatedly dropped leaflets telling civilians to move to "safe" areas - and have repeatedly proceeded to bomb those areas.
> including those "camps" you mention
Like the one where an Israeli tank drove over inhabited tents?
Israel has bombed the designated safe areas significantly less than the other areas. This is fact. It also never promised not to bomb them and has consistently said that it will go after military targets in those areas as well. This is also fact. Israel has every right to do so according to international law. Israel's intention was to move civilians out of areas that are going to see heavier/intense fighting as the IDF moves to take them over on the ground.
Palestinian propaganda repeats this first point, it's not in good faith.
I'm not familiar with the second incident you're mentioning but I'm sure in any major war there will be plenty of examples of "things that are really bad". E.g. in the Ukraine-Russia war summary executions of surrendering soldiers, intentional bombing of civilians, are things that happen a lot and don't make the news. Give me one example of a major war where these things don't happen. For a western country the answer should be that these incidents should be investigated and the individuals punished. I think that rarely happens (e.g. you're not going to find many incidents of US soldiers, or "private security contractors", punished in the various wars the US engaged with). We should still strive for that. I'm pretty sure the IDF command does not order tanks to run over civilians, that is not policy, quite the opposite.
Palestinian propaganda repeats this first point, it's not in good faith.
I'm not familiar with the second incident you're mentioning but I'm sure in any major war there will be plenty of examples of "things that are really bad". E.g. in the Ukraine-Russia war summary executions of surrendering soldiers, intentional bombing of civilians, are things that happen a lot and don't make the news. Give me one example of a major war where these things don't happen. For a western country the answer should be that these incidents should be investigated and the individuals punished. I think that rarely happens (e.g. you're not going to find many incidents of US soldiers, or "private security contractors", punished in the various wars the US engaged with). We should still strive for that. I'm pretty sure the IDF command does not order tanks to run over civilians, that is not policy, quite the opposite.
> Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals)
Evacuated to where, exactly?
Evacuated to where, exactly?
Southern Gaza, Israel considers a part of Southern Gaza an humanitarian zone and dropped fliers explaining that.
OCHA (UN org) were not impressed:
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/...
Like lambs to slaughter.
Like lambs to slaughter.
if Russia says that everyone in the UK has to leave the UK that doesn't give them the right to bomb every hospital in the UK
That's true but if the UK military intentionally embeds in all UK cities, in civilian clothes, and launches rockets at Russia from those cities, and the UK sends raids into Russia to kill Russians and then retreats and mixes with civilian population in the UK, what do you feel is a legitimate move or tactic by Russia to defend its citizens in this hypothetical situation?
And what if Russia had been colonizing Scotland, then Wales, then half of England, only left disjointed pockets of UK residents not allowed to vote, being watched 24/7, being beaten, harassed and killed by settlers under the watch of Russian army, and then being beaten when going to the funeral of their dead, being robbed of their natural resources, having to go through checkpoints to see their family, London being half the UK capital and half the Russian capital but actually Russia says the entirety of London is, Russia bombing neighbour countries, all of this illegal and happening for 75 years and no one in the world does anything because the richest country in the world blindly supports Russia ?
Context, always.
Context, always.
It's less of a context than your political position or opinion. I think it's also at the very least naive and simplistic. As one example, those checkpoints you're describing did not exist before terrorism such as suicide bombers and other indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. They also do not exist in Gaza. I'm finding it hard to follow the rest of your analogy.
My context is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 as a pilot for a plan for complete disengagement from the Palestinians, effectively the two state solution everyone talks about. It handed this region, that used to be occupied (from Egypt) to the Palestinians to make their own. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers left. Nobody was being watched or harassed by Israel. Hamas took control of Gaza by force and turned it into a mini-Caliphate with the sole purpose of killing all Jews in the middle east. Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
What I will agree with you is that the history of the conflict has relevance to the morality of Israel's actions. I would say though that Hamas' conduct is: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and immoral. This does not need any context. It's absolute. I would also be inclined to say, in this light, that Israel's response to Oct 7th is moral regardless of previous context. I don't think there's any "oppression" or "occupation" that justifies the violence we've seen from the Palestinian side. I can't think of any similar historical examples of these levels of indiscriminate violence against civilians. It's not just their violence towards Israel but their violence towards each other (using children or people with mental problems as suicide bombers e.g.). At least not in modern times.
Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, following the British Mandate, following the Ottoman Empire's collapse. I don't think Israeli settlements in the west bank (occupied from Jordan but historically part of the British Mandate, so complicated story there) are useful. I also don't like the settlers harassment of Palestinians (which is really a relatively recent phenomena, not going all the way back to 1967) in the west bank. But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
My context is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 as a pilot for a plan for complete disengagement from the Palestinians, effectively the two state solution everyone talks about. It handed this region, that used to be occupied (from Egypt) to the Palestinians to make their own. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers left. Nobody was being watched or harassed by Israel. Hamas took control of Gaza by force and turned it into a mini-Caliphate with the sole purpose of killing all Jews in the middle east. Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
What I will agree with you is that the history of the conflict has relevance to the morality of Israel's actions. I would say though that Hamas' conduct is: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and immoral. This does not need any context. It's absolute. I would also be inclined to say, in this light, that Israel's response to Oct 7th is moral regardless of previous context. I don't think there's any "oppression" or "occupation" that justifies the violence we've seen from the Palestinian side. I can't think of any similar historical examples of these levels of indiscriminate violence against civilians. It's not just their violence towards Israel but their violence towards each other (using children or people with mental problems as suicide bombers e.g.). At least not in modern times.
Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, following the British Mandate, following the Ottoman Empire's collapse. I don't think Israeli settlements in the west bank (occupied from Jordan but historically part of the British Mandate, so complicated story there) are useful. I also don't like the settlers harassment of Palestinians (which is really a relatively recent phenomena, not going all the way back to 1967) in the west bank. But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
And I can also say that your view is less context than a personal biased view on the situation. Mixing up Hamas and Palestinians as if they're all the same. Excusing Israel's response as just and proportionate, meaning that shelling entire neighborhoods, sniping people left and right, shooting at an ambulance are somehow fighting terrorism. Saying on all platforms that the goal is to "exterminate animals", from the highest personnel in positions of power. Shooting civilians who try to get food, blocking humanitarian convoys from entering, putting as part of a plan the total blockade of water, food, electricity of millions of people, that's fighting terrorism ?
> Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
If you want to put context, put context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... . But a fight on numbers is stupid so let's not go there. You want to put context as to why 10's of rockets explode on Israel cities, you have to explain why for each rocket Israel retaliates with 10 deaths on Palestinian side. It's all part of it.
> Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine,
I don't know how someone can still believe that when there's a page dedicated to illegal Israeli settlements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
EDIT: I'm not even making this up: "Israel approves plans for 3,400 new homes in West Bank settlements" -- "Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land the Palestinians want as part of a future state - in the 1967 Middle East war" <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034>
> But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
Oh come on. Let my country come to your land, force you to leave by hundred thousands, harass you, beat you, kill you, and let's see if you accept me settling there nicely and comfortably.
We could go on and on and on but please put the context if you want to talk about it, the real one, not the one you pick. The one that is internationally recognized but no one says anything because of interests. The one that is plain visible for all to see. There is suffering on all sides, please don't pretend it's easy.
Maybe we don't even disagree. The real conflict is between the Israel State and the Palestinian "State", or governing bodies. Let those far-right atrocities who know and help each other fight in a cage and leave the population, on both side, alone.
> Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
If you want to put context, put context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... . But a fight on numbers is stupid so let's not go there. You want to put context as to why 10's of rockets explode on Israel cities, you have to explain why for each rocket Israel retaliates with 10 deaths on Palestinian side. It's all part of it.
> Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine,
I don't know how someone can still believe that when there's a page dedicated to illegal Israeli settlements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
EDIT: I'm not even making this up: "Israel approves plans for 3,400 new homes in West Bank settlements" -- "Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land the Palestinians want as part of a future state - in the 1967 Middle East war" <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034>
> But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
Oh come on. Let my country come to your land, force you to leave by hundred thousands, harass you, beat you, kill you, and let's see if you accept me settling there nicely and comfortably.
We could go on and on and on but please put the context if you want to talk about it, the real one, not the one you pick. The one that is internationally recognized but no one says anything because of interests. The one that is plain visible for all to see. There is suffering on all sides, please don't pretend it's easy.
Maybe we don't even disagree. The real conflict is between the Israel State and the Palestinian "State", or governing bodies. Let those far-right atrocities who know and help each other fight in a cage and leave the population, on both side, alone.
I think we do agree given your last sentence. I'll sign on to that.
On the details of the history this wasn't "my country come to your land and forced you to leave" it was more like "Jewish people immigrated to this region, their historic homeland, many expelled from their homes in Europe and the middle east and had no options" (compare e.g. to Chinese people from Hong Kong immigrating to Canada) and "war started by the Arab countries against the UN recognized state of Israel led to 700,000 Palestinians refugees" (I'd compare to millions of German refugees in Europe post their loss in WW-II). Jewish immigration to the region was legal and should be viewed as moral on many levels. If the Arab population were to look at it as the positive that it could have been then we'd all be living happily ever after in a prosperous middle east. If anything millions of Jews could have been saved in WW-II if Britain were to allow more of them to immigrate- that was immoral. The Arabs had, and still do, see this as a (racist) zero sum game, not a win-win (vs. how Canada looks at immigration again e.g.). Read Israel's declaration of independence to see how Israel's leadership looked at it (and keep in mind this was 1948!).
The settlements are a tricky topic. I'm opposed to them and the settlers. But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement". That's their political perspective and IMO both racist and a distortion of history.
On the details of the history this wasn't "my country come to your land and forced you to leave" it was more like "Jewish people immigrated to this region, their historic homeland, many expelled from their homes in Europe and the middle east and had no options" (compare e.g. to Chinese people from Hong Kong immigrating to Canada) and "war started by the Arab countries against the UN recognized state of Israel led to 700,000 Palestinians refugees" (I'd compare to millions of German refugees in Europe post their loss in WW-II). Jewish immigration to the region was legal and should be viewed as moral on many levels. If the Arab population were to look at it as the positive that it could have been then we'd all be living happily ever after in a prosperous middle east. If anything millions of Jews could have been saved in WW-II if Britain were to allow more of them to immigrate- that was immoral. The Arabs had, and still do, see this as a (racist) zero sum game, not a win-win (vs. how Canada looks at immigration again e.g.). Read Israel's declaration of independence to see how Israel's leadership looked at it (and keep in mind this was 1948!).
The settlements are a tricky topic. I'm opposed to them and the settlers. But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement". That's their political perspective and IMO both racist and a distortion of history.
Thanks for providing your pov, it explains a lot of things and even though I have my views I can totally understand why we disagree:
> Jewish immigration to the region was legal
This is the crux of where we disagree. It was legal based on international law, but international law is just western law: Palestinians and neighboring countries said no, and under the same international law they were in the right: they have the right to self-determination. So if we take the legal point, the argument is not receivable
> and should be viewed as moral on many levels
That's plainly subjective and my own thinking makes me say it's immoral to displace hundreds of thousands of people and take their homes, their land, their food, just because.
> But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement"
I disagree, anyone I've seen talking about the colonialist aspect of Israel is specifically all the illegal settlements outside its borders, it's the massive control of Palestinian population, it's forbidding them access to their own sea, that kind of things. Everyone who talks about it is clear.
When people talk about the existence of Israel and its racist laws, they will rather use the term "apartheid" which is closer to the truth.
In any case, those disagreements are to be put in perspective to what we both agree on, and that is the nice note of this discussion :)
> Jewish immigration to the region was legal
This is the crux of where we disagree. It was legal based on international law, but international law is just western law: Palestinians and neighboring countries said no, and under the same international law they were in the right: they have the right to self-determination. So if we take the legal point, the argument is not receivable
> and should be viewed as moral on many levels
That's plainly subjective and my own thinking makes me say it's immoral to displace hundreds of thousands of people and take their homes, their land, their food, just because.
> But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement"
I disagree, anyone I've seen talking about the colonialist aspect of Israel is specifically all the illegal settlements outside its borders, it's the massive control of Palestinian population, it's forbidding them access to their own sea, that kind of things. Everyone who talks about it is clear.
When people talk about the existence of Israel and its racist laws, they will rather use the term "apartheid" which is closer to the truth.
In any case, those disagreements are to be put in perspective to what we both agree on, and that is the nice note of this discussion :)
I wonder if Sir William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, would be considered a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter. When England invaded and occupied and imposed ridiculous rules on them, should they have not fought back? How about the Potato Famine, how many of you know that this was caused by England INTENTIONALLY by shipping all the food out of Ireland to England. is Sinn Fein a terrorist group still? or were they so named because they fought an occupier?
I'm not familiar at all with these stories. I should read about them.
I think there's a fairly clear delineation between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A terrorist's goal is to sow terror among the target entity. It does so by random indiscriminate violence (and barbarism). The more random the target is and the more barbaric the attack is the better. 9/11 is a good example. A terrorist has no moral qualms. The goal justifies anything. It's almost certain that the terrorist is losing in any measurable objective. E.g. the Chechen attacks in Moscow leading to Russia essentially levelling Chechnia, or the Sri Lankans destroying the Tamils. It's kind of a lost cause made worse by violence.
A freedom fighter, to contrast, will weigh the morality of their actions vs. what they can accomplish and other non-violent alternatives. They will weigh the violence they use, their targets, against specific "freedom" goals. They will not sacrifice their own humanity to pursue their goal. They have some reasonable chance of achieving some real "freedom" goals out of the targeted acts of violence. WW-II Partisans come to mind.
I think there's a fairly clear delineation between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A terrorist's goal is to sow terror among the target entity. It does so by random indiscriminate violence (and barbarism). The more random the target is and the more barbaric the attack is the better. 9/11 is a good example. A terrorist has no moral qualms. The goal justifies anything. It's almost certain that the terrorist is losing in any measurable objective. E.g. the Chechen attacks in Moscow leading to Russia essentially levelling Chechnia, or the Sri Lankans destroying the Tamils. It's kind of a lost cause made worse by violence.
A freedom fighter, to contrast, will weigh the morality of their actions vs. what they can accomplish and other non-violent alternatives. They will weigh the violence they use, their targets, against specific "freedom" goals. They will not sacrifice their own humanity to pursue their goal. They have some reasonable chance of achieving some real "freedom" goals out of the targeted acts of violence. WW-II Partisans come to mind.
Gaza is among the most densly populated areas on earth. By definition, any military installation is close to civilians. Same goes for a lot of IDF, and every other military, ehich has bases next to a city. Doesn't mean one just can indiscriminately bomb everything and everyone...
That's absolutely not a reasonable comparison.
What you have neglected is history. The last time Israel pushed people out of their homes, they were not allowed to return. This fact is seared into the memory of every Palestinian for generations. They carry the keys to their original homes to this day. So forgive them for not wanting to abandon their only homes because they want to kill people they have been abusing for decades. Please read your history prior to making unfounded statements and justifications.
The Palestinians have their own version of history which let's just say is inaccurate. One example is they underplay the seriousness of the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 and things like the Egyptian air force bombing Tel-Aviv seem to evaporate from their version of events. They also tend to completely forget about their collaboration with Nazi Germany and the numerous attacks against Jews pre-1948. Really history in the sense of "his story". You can argue Israelis also do this, which is probably correct, but I think you'll find more diverse views in Israeli society and more access to facts. In fact many Palestinians use Israeli historians as their reference (while conveniently not pointing out what parts of their claims are still under debate/disagreement).
It's true that some people were forced to leave after the Arabs started a war on Israel in 1948 and those people generally weren't allowed back. It's also true that many people chose to leave and also weren't allowed back. That said your logic makes no sense to anyone with western values IMO. Your life is more important than your property. I.e. between the option of staying in your property and dying and leaving and not dying the choice for most people in the west is clear. It's true that if they leave they may not be allowed to return. We can argue about the morality of that given they started this current war as well. I think in practice Gazans will be allowed to go back, but time will tell and events will transpire. If anything in practice leaving their homes to allow Israel to focus on Hamas would have likely shortened the war and increased their chances of getting back home and to normality sooner.
I can't really follow your logic who is wanting to kill who and who has been abusing who.
It's true that some people were forced to leave after the Arabs started a war on Israel in 1948 and those people generally weren't allowed back. It's also true that many people chose to leave and also weren't allowed back. That said your logic makes no sense to anyone with western values IMO. Your life is more important than your property. I.e. between the option of staying in your property and dying and leaving and not dying the choice for most people in the west is clear. It's true that if they leave they may not be allowed to return. We can argue about the morality of that given they started this current war as well. I think in practice Gazans will be allowed to go back, but time will tell and events will transpire. If anything in practice leaving their homes to allow Israel to focus on Hamas would have likely shortened the war and increased their chances of getting back home and to normality sooner.
I can't really follow your logic who is wanting to kill who and who has been abusing who.
> why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?
In my eyes, this is cast-iron proof that there is little concern on IDF side for civilian deaths. I do not see a plausible counter-argument
In my eyes, this is cast-iron proof that there is little concern on IDF side for civilian deaths. I do not see a plausible counter-argument
Dumb bombs can be aimed accurately.
“Refugee camp” is just a legal designation for certain areas in the Gaza Strip. It refers to “refugees” from events that took place decades before almost anyone in the Gaza Strip was even born.
It's a dense urban area, it has civilians and children.
That bomb is large enough to level an apartment block, so ~100 casualties and they don't know where it will land. Who are they targeting with that type of bomb, 1 Hamas fighter hiding among population?
It's error margin is in hundreds of meters. You are not allowed to kill 100 innocent people in the hopes (not certainty!) of getting 1 enemy soldier. That's exactly what 'indiscriminate killing of civilians' means.
That is why United States has never used this size of bomb, let alone unguided, in it's recent wars in Urban areas. They were also fighting guerrilla fighters - Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.
The act of using this weapon in Urban area is a war crime, just as it would be a war crime to use chemical weapons, etc.
That bomb is large enough to level an apartment block, so ~100 casualties and they don't know where it will land. Who are they targeting with that type of bomb, 1 Hamas fighter hiding among population?
It's error margin is in hundreds of meters. You are not allowed to kill 100 innocent people in the hopes (not certainty!) of getting 1 enemy soldier. That's exactly what 'indiscriminate killing of civilians' means.
That is why United States has never used this size of bomb, let alone unguided, in it's recent wars in Urban areas. They were also fighting guerrilla fighters - Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.
The act of using this weapon in Urban area is a war crime, just as it would be a war crime to use chemical weapons, etc.
Former AP reporters have come forward and admitted that not only was the AP well aware of Hamas’ presence and activity in the building, but that from time to time, armed Hamas men would burst into their offices demanding they not report on some of those activities.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/ho...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/ho...
[deleted]
> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
Interesting. I wonder whether genocide of all people seriously harmed by IDF since Oct 7 should also be added to the list of war crimes obsoleted in this recent war. It only makes sense, since all these people are enemies of the state of Israel with a very high probability of causing harm to the civilians living there in the future. Geneva conventions are really showing their age in the past few months.
Interesting. I wonder whether genocide of all people seriously harmed by IDF since Oct 7 should also be added to the list of war crimes obsoleted in this recent war. It only makes sense, since all these people are enemies of the state of Israel with a very high probability of causing harm to the civilians living there in the future. Geneva conventions are really showing their age in the past few months.
redeeman(2)
philwelch(1)
Besides the statistics I advise anyone to also look at the reports of how the individual deaths happened, I've seen them very little discussed in western media.
There's often enough evidence to show an extremely likely deliberate killing (usually with weapons that Hamas doesn't have).
Journalists have been killed outside of the Gaza strip as well.
Just make your own informed opinion.
Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century
There's often enough evidence to show an extremely likely deliberate killing (usually with weapons that Hamas doesn't have).
Journalists have been killed outside of the Gaza strip as well.
Just make your own informed opinion.
Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century
War is nasty, it brings out the worst in people. Look at this, listen to their laughter while conducting their "work":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw (2007)
"The video shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad after they are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred."
(We may not have such detailed coverage for Gaza that we have for Baghdad, which is of course also caused by the lack of journalists, since who is dead can no longer report.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw (2007)
"The video shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad after they are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred."
(We may not have such detailed coverage for Gaza that we have for Baghdad, which is of course also caused by the lack of journalists, since who is dead can no longer report.)
It's also worth seeing if there's a historical pattern of behaviour:
"One Martyr Down: The Untold Story Of A Canadian Peacekeeper Killed At War" - https://legionmagazine.com/one-martyr-down-the-untold-story-...
A Canadian Army Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was assassinated after the IDF "accidentally" bombed a United Nations post that he was posted at - soon after he reported war crimes that he witnessed the IDF doing.
"One Martyr Down: The Untold Story Of A Canadian Peacekeeper Killed At War" - https://legionmagazine.com/one-martyr-down-the-untold-story-...
A Canadian Army Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was assassinated after the IDF "accidentally" bombed a United Nations post that he was posted at - soon after he reported war crimes that he witnessed the IDF doing.
For context, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener emailed [1] days before saying that Hezbollah were using his positions and the IDF was being forced to fire on them out of "tactical necessity". This isn't as clear-cut as you're attempting to paint it.
1 - https://web.archive.org/web/20061010012455/http://www.canada...
1 - https://web.archive.org/web/20061010012455/http://www.canada...
From the same article:
A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."
---
This part states the area was being bombed prior to reports of Hezbollah activity in the area, so yes - the confusion will muddy it.
Nonetheless, he had recently reported IDF war crimes - and the IDF at minimum coincidentally was responsible for killing him; with this seemingly contradictory statement by a senior UN official.
A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."
---
This part states the area was being bombed prior to reports of Hezbollah activity in the area, so yes - the confusion will muddy it.
Nonetheless, he had recently reported IDF war crimes - and the IDF at minimum coincidentally was responsible for killing him; with this seemingly contradictory statement by a senior UN official.
*wasn't
It would be great if you could share some of this credible evidence. There are so many loose claims flying around ...
> Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century
Access to war zones has been limited commonly, IIRC, at least since the Iraq war. In Ukraine, journalists talk about government cooperation and, IIRC, approval.
If you are thinking about Vietnam, I think that has become more of the exception than the rule. (I think that in a free society, it should be the rule.)
> Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century
Access to war zones has been limited commonly, IIRC, at least since the Iraq war. In Ukraine, journalists talk about government cooperation and, IIRC, approval.
If you are thinking about Vietnam, I think that has become more of the exception than the rule. (I think that in a free society, it should be the rule.)
>Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century
I think the prohibition is wrong, but what do you think "real journalists" can offer people that isn't already being spread around? We are inundated with stories from this conflict; what is CNN going to add to the conversation? Most of these outlets are mouthpieces for their respective governments anyway, their point-of-view is predictable.
I think the prohibition is wrong, but what do you think "real journalists" can offer people that isn't already being spread around? We are inundated with stories from this conflict; what is CNN going to add to the conversation? Most of these outlets are mouthpieces for their respective governments anyway, their point-of-view is predictable.
> We are inundated with stories from this conflict; what is CNN going to add to the conversation
For example it could add informing a much wider span of the population and so influencing the governments?
I guarantee you that not everyone is inundated with stories from the conflict.
For example it could add informing a much wider span of the population and so influencing the governments?
I guarantee you that not everyone is inundated with stories from the conflict.
The Hamas may(?) have less leverage over foreign reporters. For local reporters there's a history of Hamas threatening and using violence against the reporters and their families to get the kind of reporting they want.
I agree with the observation that many of those outlets are mouthpieces for their respective government though.
Here are a few references to keep in mind when thinking about journalists working in Gaza (or you can think about Russia, Iran, North Korea, maybe China as being similar):
https://www.amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/gaza-hamas-must-end...
"The Gaza Strip is a particularly inhospitable territory for press freedom. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad harass and obstruct journalists suspected of collaborating with Israel," - https://rsf.org/en/country/palestine
"Gaza: Journalist facing prison term for exposing corruption in Hamas-controlled ministry" - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/02/gaza-journali...
"The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza are arresting, abusing, and criminally charging journalists and activists who express peaceful criticism of the authorities. ... Both Palestinian governments, operating independently, have apparently arrived at similar methods of harassment, intimidation and physical abuse of anyone who dares criticize them. ... The media freedom group MADA documented 192 incidents in 2015 in which Palestinian authorities infringed on journalists’ right to free expression through summoning and interrogation, arrests, physical assault, detention, and, in Gaza, forbidding journalists from reporting on certain issues or stories. That was a 68 percent increase over 2014. The pattern of abuse that MADA reported, including beatings, torture, warnings to stop criticizing the government, and seizing passwords to search social media accounts, is consistent with the cases Human Rights Watch documented." - https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/30/palestine-crackdown-jour...
Isra Al-Mudalla, the head of foreign relations in Hamas’s Information Ministry said, "The security agencies would go and have a chat with these people. They would give them some time to change their message, one way or another." ... “Some of the journalists who entered the Gaza Strip were under security surveillance. Even under these difficult circumstances, we managed to reach them, and tell them that what they were doing was anything but professional journalism and that it was immoral.” - https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-admits-intimidating-fore... https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-government-spokesperson-we-de...
I agree with the observation that many of those outlets are mouthpieces for their respective government though.
Here are a few references to keep in mind when thinking about journalists working in Gaza (or you can think about Russia, Iran, North Korea, maybe China as being similar):
https://www.amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/gaza-hamas-must-end...
"The Gaza Strip is a particularly inhospitable territory for press freedom. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad harass and obstruct journalists suspected of collaborating with Israel," - https://rsf.org/en/country/palestine
"Gaza: Journalist facing prison term for exposing corruption in Hamas-controlled ministry" - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/02/gaza-journali...
"The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza are arresting, abusing, and criminally charging journalists and activists who express peaceful criticism of the authorities. ... Both Palestinian governments, operating independently, have apparently arrived at similar methods of harassment, intimidation and physical abuse of anyone who dares criticize them. ... The media freedom group MADA documented 192 incidents in 2015 in which Palestinian authorities infringed on journalists’ right to free expression through summoning and interrogation, arrests, physical assault, detention, and, in Gaza, forbidding journalists from reporting on certain issues or stories. That was a 68 percent increase over 2014. The pattern of abuse that MADA reported, including beatings, torture, warnings to stop criticizing the government, and seizing passwords to search social media accounts, is consistent with the cases Human Rights Watch documented." - https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/30/palestine-crackdown-jour...
Isra Al-Mudalla, the head of foreign relations in Hamas’s Information Ministry said, "The security agencies would go and have a chat with these people. They would give them some time to change their message, one way or another." ... “Some of the journalists who entered the Gaza Strip were under security surveillance. Even under these difficult circumstances, we managed to reach them, and tell them that what they were doing was anything but professional journalism and that it was immoral.” - https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-admits-intimidating-fore... https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-government-spokesperson-we-de...
As to the reliability of some more reputable news sources, anyhow... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-...
Interesting since in my book CNN is very anti-Israeli. Maybe not as anti-Israeli as The Guardian. The "funny" thing is that if some consider you pro-Israeli and some consider you anti-Israeli that doesn't mean you're neutral. It all depends on your viewpoint.
I feel that will take a long time to be able to actually look at the current events with perspective when we have more facts and less emotions. Right now we're seeing an information war and attempts to recruit media and control the narratives.
The thing I find most frustrating is media pretending to be neutral and unbiased where they are in fact always taking sides. To look at another conflict, western media takes the side of Ukraine while still pretending to just be covering the war (and we're mostly ok with that because nobody in the west is taking Russia's side anyways). I think the media should disclose their position and report facts. Instead they often repeat misinformation (and both sides here have similar claims), don't give good context, and take sides without disclosing that.
I feel that will take a long time to be able to actually look at the current events with perspective when we have more facts and less emotions. Right now we're seeing an information war and attempts to recruit media and control the narratives.
The thing I find most frustrating is media pretending to be neutral and unbiased where they are in fact always taking sides. To look at another conflict, western media takes the side of Ukraine while still pretending to just be covering the war (and we're mostly ok with that because nobody in the west is taking Russia's side anyways). I think the media should disclose their position and report facts. Instead they often repeat misinformation (and both sides here have similar claims), don't give good context, and take sides without disclosing that.
> Interesting since in my book CNN is very anti-Israeli.
CNN is openly requiring a pro-Israeli bias in reporting for this war, and apparently before that.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-...
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/01/cnn-christiane-amanpour-...
CNN is openly requiring a pro-Israeli bias in reporting for this war, and apparently before that.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-...
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/01/cnn-christiane-amanpour-...
CNN is openly and explicitly pro-israel.
Can you provide any examples for your claims otherwise?
Can you provide any examples for your claims otherwise?
It's my personal experience.
Whenever I navigate to CNN's web site it mostly features the plight of Palestinians in manipulative and repetitive ways. Stories showing Israel in a bad light will persist for days on the front page. It shows nothing about the plight of Israelis. When I see CNN reporters like Wolf Blitzer interview Israelis they are openly hostile. Christiane Amanpour interviewed Ehud Barak the other day and her tone was quite hostile. Their referral to Israeli data often uses language like "Israel says" or "Israel alleges" even when reporting on matters that are known to be factual. E.g. their reporter will enter a tunnel that obviously goes under a hospital they just saw outside and will report as if that's still a matter of speculation. Often referral to Hamas data is presented as fact.
CNN leans towards the Democrats in the US (obviously) and we're seeing the Democrats overall take a fairly critical stance towards Israel. So it's not a surprise to me that the left leaning media follows that lead. Though CNN has a history of anti-Israeli bias.
Just Googling now it does seem that it's somewhat of meme in certain circles how CNN is Pro-Israeli. That's understandable. To certain circles using the word "Israel" and not "The Occupation" and the word "terrorism" instead of "resistance", or mentioning evils like the two state solution, interviewing any Israelis etc., is Pro-Israeli. Seriously though, it's ridiculous to consider CNN Pro-Israeli when their focus is mostly on making Israel look bad. It makes perfect sense for the enemies of Israel to attack CNN as being Pro-Israeli because they are trying to use any leverage they can to shift US public opinion because Israel relies on US support. No tactic is beneath them to accomplish their goal of the elimination of Israel. The Palestinians have for decades now pursued these sorts of tactics.
Also check this out (pre-Oct 7th):
https://www.camera.org/article/tracking-cnns-bias-cnns-obses...
I understand that the fact CNN isn't reporting on Israel like Al-Jazeera (Qatar's propaganda arm) does paint them as Pro-Israeli to a certain crowd. It is true they are not Al-Jazeera but they're certainly not Pro-Israeli. Their anti-Israeli bias goes way back.
Whenever I navigate to CNN's web site it mostly features the plight of Palestinians in manipulative and repetitive ways. Stories showing Israel in a bad light will persist for days on the front page. It shows nothing about the plight of Israelis. When I see CNN reporters like Wolf Blitzer interview Israelis they are openly hostile. Christiane Amanpour interviewed Ehud Barak the other day and her tone was quite hostile. Their referral to Israeli data often uses language like "Israel says" or "Israel alleges" even when reporting on matters that are known to be factual. E.g. their reporter will enter a tunnel that obviously goes under a hospital they just saw outside and will report as if that's still a matter of speculation. Often referral to Hamas data is presented as fact.
CNN leans towards the Democrats in the US (obviously) and we're seeing the Democrats overall take a fairly critical stance towards Israel. So it's not a surprise to me that the left leaning media follows that lead. Though CNN has a history of anti-Israeli bias.
Just Googling now it does seem that it's somewhat of meme in certain circles how CNN is Pro-Israeli. That's understandable. To certain circles using the word "Israel" and not "The Occupation" and the word "terrorism" instead of "resistance", or mentioning evils like the two state solution, interviewing any Israelis etc., is Pro-Israeli. Seriously though, it's ridiculous to consider CNN Pro-Israeli when their focus is mostly on making Israel look bad. It makes perfect sense for the enemies of Israel to attack CNN as being Pro-Israeli because they are trying to use any leverage they can to shift US public opinion because Israel relies on US support. No tactic is beneath them to accomplish their goal of the elimination of Israel. The Palestinians have for decades now pursued these sorts of tactics.
Also check this out (pre-Oct 7th):
https://www.camera.org/article/tracking-cnns-bias-cnns-obses...
I understand that the fact CNN isn't reporting on Israel like Al-Jazeera (Qatar's propaganda arm) does paint them as Pro-Israeli to a certain crowd. It is true they are not Al-Jazeera but they're certainly not Pro-Israeli. Their anti-Israeli bias goes way back.
What matters most from the journalists is their video reports, especially the live ones
In the current situation I don't think Hamas can exert very much control on the population, anyhow.
The handful of times that other journalists managed to enter, by the way, they confirmed what had been reported (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdIZmZr29L0)
In the current situation I don't think Hamas can exert very much control on the population, anyhow.
The handful of times that other journalists managed to enter, by the way, they confirmed what had been reported (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdIZmZr29L0)
I expect Hamas is still exerting plenty of control.
I'm not sure what "confirmed what had been reported" really means here. The problem isn't that we're necessarily getting outright lies and fake news (I'm sure we're getting some), but that we're getting a very selective and emotional view into the horrors of war.
There's zero doubt that the impact of the war on Gaza is immense and so there's zero doubt that journalists can get heart wrenching stories of death and destruction out of it. As they can from any war.
Here are some thought experiments:
- Is there a way Israel could have defeated Hamas in a way where the media wouldn't be able to show any death and destruction? I believe the answer is no.
- Could the media have painted a very different picture of the war by changing focus? For sure.
There's just no way you're not getting a biased view here. I can tell any story with the same "raw reality" by selecting things that promote my cause, whatever it is. Where the bias is vs. some "nominal" ground reality is hard to say. If you look e.g. at the Ukraine-Russian war it's clear most western media is 100% biased towards Ukraine.
I'm not sure what "confirmed what had been reported" really means here. The problem isn't that we're necessarily getting outright lies and fake news (I'm sure we're getting some), but that we're getting a very selective and emotional view into the horrors of war.
There's zero doubt that the impact of the war on Gaza is immense and so there's zero doubt that journalists can get heart wrenching stories of death and destruction out of it. As they can from any war.
Here are some thought experiments:
- Is there a way Israel could have defeated Hamas in a way where the media wouldn't be able to show any death and destruction? I believe the answer is no.
- Could the media have painted a very different picture of the war by changing focus? For sure.
There's just no way you're not getting a biased view here. I can tell any story with the same "raw reality" by selecting things that promote my cause, whatever it is. Where the bias is vs. some "nominal" ground reality is hard to say. If you look e.g. at the Ukraine-Russian war it's clear most western media is 100% biased towards Ukraine.
I think some of those arguments verge into the 'there is no truth, it's all a matter of how you paint it' territory, which is the argument of disinformation and propaganda (I'm saying it not to accuse the parent; I assume they don't want disinfo, etc.)
Objectively, Israel has caused a very high rate of civilian deaths, destruction of property, and is causing a near-famine or famine.
People argue that such outcomes are unavoidable, but they are happening. I think that the news media would be dishonest to paint a different picture than that.
Objectively, Israel has caused a very high rate of civilian deaths, destruction of property, and is causing a near-famine or famine.
People argue that such outcomes are unavoidable, but they are happening. I think that the news media would be dishonest to paint a different picture than that.
Sure, a large number of civilian deaths, and massive destruction of property.
I have a problem though when the media just shows an endless stream of emotionally manipulative images and stories. I also have a problem with their selectivity, e.g. they don't chose to show us civilians being attacked in Donetsk or something. They also generally don't show us images of Israeli refugees from the north and the south or actually report on that at all. They totally ignore events like rockets being fired at Israeli cities (still happens though a lot less). The coverage of Hezbollah's attacks and massive scale property destruction in the north of Israel is also nonexistent.
Even at the height of the Russia-Ukraine war we weren't being flooded by the same level of images/stories. Yes, we did get some stories out of Mariupol but not nearly as much as we get out of Gaza. Ukraine claims 25,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol (out of 500,000 people!). I think the destruction of Mariupol easily eclipses the destruction in Gaza. The Russians weren't facing anything similar to what Israel is facing in Gaza, they just blitzed the heck out of the city. Who is painted as more "evil" in western media, Russia or Israel? Arguably Israel. Ofcourse Russia invaded Ukraine and for most of us is clearly the "bad guy" here.
EDIT: and by the way, if you consume Israel media, which is obviously very pro-Israeli. You'll still get the same facts about the conditions in Gaza. But if you consume anti-Israeli media you will get no other relevant facts. If you ask people in the west some very basic questions about the conflict you'll find total cluelessness which is a result of that. Ask a random American how far Tel-Aviv is from Gaza, or where is Palestine, or what is Hezbollah, or any number of basic knowledge questions about the conflict and see. Most know O(nothing), see images of suffering and destruction all day, and naturally will align themselves with the side they see suffering.
I have a problem though when the media just shows an endless stream of emotionally manipulative images and stories. I also have a problem with their selectivity, e.g. they don't chose to show us civilians being attacked in Donetsk or something. They also generally don't show us images of Israeli refugees from the north and the south or actually report on that at all. They totally ignore events like rockets being fired at Israeli cities (still happens though a lot less). The coverage of Hezbollah's attacks and massive scale property destruction in the north of Israel is also nonexistent.
Even at the height of the Russia-Ukraine war we weren't being flooded by the same level of images/stories. Yes, we did get some stories out of Mariupol but not nearly as much as we get out of Gaza. Ukraine claims 25,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol (out of 500,000 people!). I think the destruction of Mariupol easily eclipses the destruction in Gaza. The Russians weren't facing anything similar to what Israel is facing in Gaza, they just blitzed the heck out of the city. Who is painted as more "evil" in western media, Russia or Israel? Arguably Israel. Ofcourse Russia invaded Ukraine and for most of us is clearly the "bad guy" here.
EDIT: and by the way, if you consume Israel media, which is obviously very pro-Israeli. You'll still get the same facts about the conditions in Gaza. But if you consume anti-Israeli media you will get no other relevant facts. If you ask people in the west some very basic questions about the conflict you'll find total cluelessness which is a result of that. Ask a random American how far Tel-Aviv is from Gaza, or where is Palestine, or what is Hezbollah, or any number of basic knowledge questions about the conflict and see. Most know O(nothing), see images of suffering and destruction all day, and naturally will align themselves with the side they see suffering.
I feel like an assertion is missing here: What is your conclusion from all of that? Is it that Israel is treated unfairly by the news media and that's why they are criticized?
That may be a factor, but it doesn't feel like a genuine discussion. Maybe Israel is doing some things wrong or there are legitimate concerns about that. The death and destruction are large scale relative to the war zone, and that should be a serious concern and attract exceptional attention no matter who you are. Blaming it all on bias, etc. is a weak response that doesn't address the merits; it also fits, intentionally or not, a very old rhetorical technique of redirection (as is the whataboutism). You seem knowledgeable and thoughtful; what do you really think about the real issues?
Regarding some other issues:
FWIW, in my particular news media bubble (mostly leading print journalism), that's not what I see at all. I read about all the issues you mention, about harm and fear and everything else on both sides. From what I read about my sources, they are biased toward Israel; IME: coverage of the war is pretty balanced. They all omit 99% of the Israeli violence and hate I see reported in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Given your perspective, do you actually read anti-Israeli media? Why?
Americans have little knowledge of geography anywhere; it has nothing to do with Israel. What do you know about, for example, South Korea? Kashmir? Ecuadoran geography? Probably for the average Israeli, they know not much at all.
That may be a factor, but it doesn't feel like a genuine discussion. Maybe Israel is doing some things wrong or there are legitimate concerns about that. The death and destruction are large scale relative to the war zone, and that should be a serious concern and attract exceptional attention no matter who you are. Blaming it all on bias, etc. is a weak response that doesn't address the merits; it also fits, intentionally or not, a very old rhetorical technique of redirection (as is the whataboutism). You seem knowledgeable and thoughtful; what do you really think about the real issues?
Regarding some other issues:
FWIW, in my particular news media bubble (mostly leading print journalism), that's not what I see at all. I read about all the issues you mention, about harm and fear and everything else on both sides. From what I read about my sources, they are biased toward Israel; IME: coverage of the war is pretty balanced. They all omit 99% of the Israeli violence and hate I see reported in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Given your perspective, do you actually read anti-Israeli media? Why?
Americans have little knowledge of geography anywhere; it has nothing to do with Israel. What do you know about, for example, South Korea? Kashmir? Ecuadoran geography? Probably for the average Israeli, they know not much at all.
To your last question I think I know a fair bit. But it's true the average Israeli does not. The average Israeli also doesn't go around telling South Korea what to do or campaigning for the North Koreans or making judgments on which side of Korea is "occupied" by whom or saying that North Korea is a prison and pressuring their local politicians about the plight of the North Koreans.
I think what's going on is partly "Jews Are News". In other words antisemitism. You have to be willingly blind not to see that the coverage of Israel and public outcry is disproportionate to other conflicts and that the focus inevitably seems to be on Israel in a bad way. Maybe another factor is influence in terms of money and effort by those seeking to weaken the west. Internal politics in various countries also have an impact.
Should we then take the position that Israel is above criticism, can do whatever it wants, and face no repercussion? No. Part of my difficulty, as a pro-Israeli, is that there's no doubt that Israel has been drifting in a bad direction. The current government is a disgrace in my opinion. There are many things Israel is doing that are not ok. If you look e.g. at what the Biden administration is saying they are trying to strike this balance of saying "Israel has the right to self defense", "Israel is justified in trying to eliminate Hamas" but at the same time saying things like "Settlements in the west bank are illegal", "Settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank won't be tolerated", "Even though you were dehumanized on Oct 7th you can't dehumanize the other side", "You need to think about the longer term solution". This to me is a measured approach given the existing focus on Israel (if there was no focus then we wouldn't even be talking about these topics).
In terms of being critical I would say what matters is your motivation. If it's coming from a place of genuinely caring about the well being of all people involved, and ideally if you know the facts/history/cultures/geography etc., have at it. The road to hell can still be paved with good intentions but it's much harder to argue with people with good intentions. My problem is with the people that knowingly or not are wanting to see harm come to Israelis (or Jews). Some are outright calling for it (e.g. supporting Oct 7th and general use of indiscriminate violence against random Israelis) and some don't realize that's a consequence of what they're saying (from the river to the sea or stuff like that).
I think what's going on is partly "Jews Are News". In other words antisemitism. You have to be willingly blind not to see that the coverage of Israel and public outcry is disproportionate to other conflicts and that the focus inevitably seems to be on Israel in a bad way. Maybe another factor is influence in terms of money and effort by those seeking to weaken the west. Internal politics in various countries also have an impact.
Should we then take the position that Israel is above criticism, can do whatever it wants, and face no repercussion? No. Part of my difficulty, as a pro-Israeli, is that there's no doubt that Israel has been drifting in a bad direction. The current government is a disgrace in my opinion. There are many things Israel is doing that are not ok. If you look e.g. at what the Biden administration is saying they are trying to strike this balance of saying "Israel has the right to self defense", "Israel is justified in trying to eliminate Hamas" but at the same time saying things like "Settlements in the west bank are illegal", "Settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank won't be tolerated", "Even though you were dehumanized on Oct 7th you can't dehumanize the other side", "You need to think about the longer term solution". This to me is a measured approach given the existing focus on Israel (if there was no focus then we wouldn't even be talking about these topics).
In terms of being critical I would say what matters is your motivation. If it's coming from a place of genuinely caring about the well being of all people involved, and ideally if you know the facts/history/cultures/geography etc., have at it. The road to hell can still be paved with good intentions but it's much harder to argue with people with good intentions. My problem is with the people that knowingly or not are wanting to see harm come to Israelis (or Jews). Some are outright calling for it (e.g. supporting Oct 7th and general use of indiscriminate violence against random Israelis) and some don't realize that's a consequence of what they're saying (from the river to the sea or stuff like that).
> evidence to show an extremely likely deliberate killing
Do you have examples?
Do you have examples?
https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... is a good independent source to get started
(see also https://cpj.org/2024/03/attacks-arrests-threats-censorship-t...)
(see also https://cpj.org/2024/03/attacks-arrests-threats-censorship-t...)
I appreciate that this is on here and I hope we can collectively handle it. Tech isn't isolated from this situation, as difficult as it is to admit and talk about with civility and care. A US military software engineer even self immolated recently in protest of what's happening.
I don't see what's happening in Gaza as being culturally particular to the specific identity groups involved here. It's a very human situation and we are all at risk of falling into these kinds of collective behaviors.
I don't see what's happening in Gaza as being culturally particular to the specific identity groups involved here. It's a very human situation and we are all at risk of falling into these kinds of collective behaviors.
Yeah, there's plenty of relevant tech angles, whether that's Israelis utilizing AI to pick targets while acknowledging they know exactly how many civilians they're going to kill in the process [1], Israeli spyware being used to hack people everywhere in the world, etc.
[1] https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
[1] https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Strongly disagree. This platform for tech news should not become a place for political posts, nor even for posting regular news headlines. Yes we know that reddit sucks but stop trying to make hn into reddit.
Also the community can't handle it, just look at the handful of comments we already have here.
Also the community can't handle it, just look at the handful of comments we already have here.
We know and work with Israelis and former Palestinians, and it is difficult enough to navigate the stresses without the added complexity of each side reading totally different news outlets and never talking about it in the same forums. I always try to handle this stuff at work (and political issues are absolutely part of the lunchtime tapestry that impacts the cohesion of engineering teams) by sticking to the facts, but we need to agree on some shared reality for the facts to be a safe "home base" for diplomatic answers to the tough questions we can't avoid... I think it is very important for some amount of news to leak into the common spaces, as long as we can keep from arguing about it on a level higher than its veracity or importance.
whiterknight(2)
incognos(2)
HN's standard about this question has been stable for many years: some stories with political overlap are both inevitable and in keeping with the mandate of the site. The question, when it comes to the biggest political topics, is which stories clear that bar.
I've posted about this many times, including quite a few explanations specific to the current topic:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435024 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237176 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38947003 (Jan 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38749162 (Dec 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657829 (Dec 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 (Dec 2023)
Here are links to lots of past explanations I've given about the principles we use to decide these questions more generally:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
I've posted about this many times, including quite a few explanations specific to the current topic:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435024 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237176 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38947003 (Jan 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38749162 (Dec 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657829 (Dec 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 (Dec 2023)
Here are links to lots of past explanations I've given about the principles we use to decide these questions more generally:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
If this topic merits discussion on HN, can you do something about the flagging? It seems like someone is flagging every comment to prevent discussion.
Edit: oh, you were asking about comments. In my haste I missed that and thought you were asking about submissions.
There are lots of comments in this thread that aren't flagged, so discussion isn't being prevented. It's true that a lot of the earlier comments were flagged, but that was (or should be) because they were flamebait. It's one of the downsides of internet commenting that the flameiest and most reflexive comments appear first in a thread—because those reactions are the quickest to flare up. Better, more reflective comments always take longer [1]. This goes 1000x for a topic like this one, unfortunately.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
-- original reply --
I've answered that several times in the links I listed; can you take a look and, if there's something specific I haven't addressed, let me know?
(I don't mean to be dismissive—it just takes a surprising amount of time to write those things and I can't do it at the moment.)
There are lots of comments in this thread that aren't flagged, so discussion isn't being prevented. It's true that a lot of the earlier comments were flagged, but that was (or should be) because they were flamebait. It's one of the downsides of internet commenting that the flameiest and most reflexive comments appear first in a thread—because those reactions are the quickest to flare up. Better, more reflective comments always take longer [1]. This goes 1000x for a topic like this one, unfortunately.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
-- original reply --
I've answered that several times in the links I listed; can you take a look and, if there's something specific I haven't addressed, let me know?
(I don't mean to be dismissive—it just takes a surprising amount of time to write those things and I can't do it at the moment.)
It's surprisingly dismissive. It's not that because not all of the comments aren't flagged that discussion isn't being prevented. And the (or should be) does most of the work when you talk about flagged are flagged because they were flamebait.
I'm pretty sure it's not an easy task to moderate HN. But I'm still surprised by the answer here.
I'm pretty sure it's not an easy task to moderate HN. But I'm still surprised by the answer here.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your point here.
Keep in mind that I was commenting about the situation very early in the thread. My comment applies only to the very first comments that got posted—perhaps the first couple dozen—no later.
Keep in mind that I was commenting about the situation very early in the thread. My comment applies only to the very first comments that got posted—perhaps the first couple dozen—no later.
I'm sorry to insist but there are groups here who abuse flagging as a censorship tool to suppress opinions they disagree with.
Anything that goes against the status quo has a high chance of being flagged, I've seen this happen over and over and especially recently.
Anything that goes against the status quo has a high chance of being flagged, I've seen this happen over and over and especially recently.
Especially since it only takes two accounts to flag a comment.
To prevent the flagging you would have to block an entire country which has an army of people trying to prevent discussion as we speak.
[deleted]
Hey Dang, huge fan of HN.
How do you reconcile HN's political neutrality and the fact that almost every overtly political story that hits the front page about certain subjects[1] are blatantly biased on one side?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324
How do you reconcile HN's political neutrality and the fact that almost every overtly political story that hits the front page about certain subjects[1] are blatantly biased on one side?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324
I think part of it is the current situation lends itself to more pro-gaza headlines.
For starters the situation is evolving more on that front. Every new action is a potential headline for palestine. On the other hand Israel's position is much more static: They want to prevent the slaughter on oct 7 from happening again, and are using force to do so. That hasn't changed. You can't make new headlines out of it.
Its probably also inherent to the fact that Israel is currently on the offensive, outside of its territory in an asymetrical urban conflict. The optics on that are always going to be bad for the state in Israel's position regardless of how justified it is. Urban conflict is always a bloody mess, same with asymetric conflicts.
When israel bombs a hospital that makes a great headline. Its easy to understand and verify - hospital used to be there, now it is not. Its emotional - everyone knows in normal circumstances hospitals are supposed to be off limits. The Israeli side is hard to fit into a headline - hospital bombed after it became a military target due to use by militants, in accordance with international law and the principles of porportionality and distinction. For starters that is a mouthful to be a headline. It lacks emotional punch because now we are talking about legalese not deaths of innocets. Its hard to understand - most non experts do not know what the doctrine of porportionality& distinction is. Even if they do, we do not know in the fog of war what israel knew when targeting it and if it was reasonable at the time. Even if we did, where precisely the line is can be controversially grey. Its not like there is a huge amount of case law on this. Determing if it was legal would probably require hundreds of pages of legal argumentation. Even then, there is a whole other question of if the line international law draws is the correct one morally, which you could write a book on. Its just very hard to put all that in a news article.
So i don't think it is HN's fault that most of these articles lean more anti-israel. Its just much easier to write about things from that perspective. It is much more black and white and requires much less nuance and context.
For starters the situation is evolving more on that front. Every new action is a potential headline for palestine. On the other hand Israel's position is much more static: They want to prevent the slaughter on oct 7 from happening again, and are using force to do so. That hasn't changed. You can't make new headlines out of it.
Its probably also inherent to the fact that Israel is currently on the offensive, outside of its territory in an asymetrical urban conflict. The optics on that are always going to be bad for the state in Israel's position regardless of how justified it is. Urban conflict is always a bloody mess, same with asymetric conflicts.
When israel bombs a hospital that makes a great headline. Its easy to understand and verify - hospital used to be there, now it is not. Its emotional - everyone knows in normal circumstances hospitals are supposed to be off limits. The Israeli side is hard to fit into a headline - hospital bombed after it became a military target due to use by militants, in accordance with international law and the principles of porportionality and distinction. For starters that is a mouthful to be a headline. It lacks emotional punch because now we are talking about legalese not deaths of innocets. Its hard to understand - most non experts do not know what the doctrine of porportionality& distinction is. Even if they do, we do not know in the fog of war what israel knew when targeting it and if it was reasonable at the time. Even if we did, where precisely the line is can be controversially grey. Its not like there is a huge amount of case law on this. Determing if it was legal would probably require hundreds of pages of legal argumentation. Even then, there is a whole other question of if the line international law draws is the correct one morally, which you could write a book on. Its just very hard to put all that in a news article.
So i don't think it is HN's fault that most of these articles lean more anti-israel. Its just much easier to write about things from that perspective. It is much more black and white and requires much less nuance and context.
This isn’t rocket science. Israel has killed more than 13,000 children in less than 5 months. This is only counting the children. That’s almost 4.5 9/11’s in children alone. And our (Americans) taxpayer dollars is helping sponsor these war crimes.
Israel has one of the most advanced military and intelligence apparatuses in the world. And Palestinians are some of the most surveilled humans in the world. Israel knows where they’re dropping the bombs and the demographics of the humans who live there. No amount of gaslighting the international community and unsophisticated normies changes this fact. There’s no excuse for these war crimes and it’s an utter shame that the West, led by America, continue to allow Israel to use the tragic events of October 7th as an excuse to murder innocent Palestinian civilians (most of whom are children).
Israel has one of the most advanced military and intelligence apparatuses in the world. And Palestinians are some of the most surveilled humans in the world. Israel knows where they’re dropping the bombs and the demographics of the humans who live there. No amount of gaslighting the international community and unsophisticated normies changes this fact. There’s no excuse for these war crimes and it’s an utter shame that the West, led by America, continue to allow Israel to use the tragic events of October 7th as an excuse to murder innocent Palestinian civilians (most of whom are children).
Setting aside the fact that these are numbers provided by Hamas, the same people who claimed 500 people died in a hospital Israel bombed but when it was revealed their own rocket bombed it the casualty numbers dropped 10-fold, war isn’t arithmetic.
The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists but doesn’t allow civilians to shelter, it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way but Israel should continue until Hamas is defeated like Germany was.
The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists but doesn’t allow civilians to shelter, it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way but Israel should continue until Hamas is defeated like Germany was.
It turned out that the footage presented by israel as "a rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad fell on the hospital" was a lie.[0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Qp8hVg9X0
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Qp8hVg9X0
TRT is a Turkish public broadcast service. Erdogan openly supports Hamas.
For the record, it was debunked that it was a Hamas rocket as none of them had that potential yield and still do not. The ordinance for that explosion only had one provenance: the United States.
I asked them to source their claim [0]. Let’s see if they can do it.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39628938
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39628938
> Setting aside the fact that these are numbers provided by Hamas […]
This is an unserious argument.
1. The numbers come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, which is indeed “controlled” by Hamas since Hamas is their governing entity.
2. The Ministry has no verifiable history of being wrong on the civilian casualty numbers. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: The Ministry’s numbers have held up to scrutiny in ALL of the previous wars (including scrutiny from Israel) [0].
3. The Biden Administration has corroborated the numbers.
4. Israel hasn’t denied the numbers. In fact, in one report from the IDF a couple months ago, they corroborated the Ministry’s numbers at the time.
5. The same silly argument could be made to dismiss just about anything coming from Israel given their documented history of lying and even manipulating our (American) media, from lies about beheaded babies [1] to pushing propaganda via U.S. media outlets like the New York Times [2].
> The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. […]
This is just a whataboutism and another unserious argument.
One evil act doesn’t justify another evil act. This is as serious of an argument as someone trying to justify slavery in 2024 by pointing to America’s history with slavery.
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-mini...
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/14/israel-biden-beheaded-ba...
[2]: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...
This is an unserious argument.
1. The numbers come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, which is indeed “controlled” by Hamas since Hamas is their governing entity.
2. The Ministry has no verifiable history of being wrong on the civilian casualty numbers. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: The Ministry’s numbers have held up to scrutiny in ALL of the previous wars (including scrutiny from Israel) [0].
3. The Biden Administration has corroborated the numbers.
4. Israel hasn’t denied the numbers. In fact, in one report from the IDF a couple months ago, they corroborated the Ministry’s numbers at the time.
5. The same silly argument could be made to dismiss just about anything coming from Israel given their documented history of lying and even manipulating our (American) media, from lies about beheaded babies [1] to pushing propaganda via U.S. media outlets like the New York Times [2].
> The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. […]
This is just a whataboutism and another unserious argument.
One evil act doesn’t justify another evil act. This is as serious of an argument as someone trying to justify slavery in 2024 by pointing to America’s history with slavery.
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-mini...
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/14/israel-biden-beheaded-ba...
[2]: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...
> The Ministry has no verifiable history of being wrong on the civilian casualty numbers
This is laughable. They claimed that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 people that the Palestinians themselves bombed. You are either hopelessly biased and unserious or uninformed.
This is laughable. They claimed that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 people that the Palestinians themselves bombed. You are either hopelessly biased and unserious or uninformed.
I'm afraid you broke the site guidelines repeatedly and very badly in this thread. That's not ok. You're welcome to make your substantive points while respecting HN's rules, and indeed they will become more persuasive if you do so. But please, no more snark, name-calling, personal attacks, or flamewar posts—no matter how right you are or feel you are, and no matter how divisive the topic.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
> They claimed that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 people that the Palestinians themselves bombed.
Please source your claim as I did mine.
Please source your claim as I did mine.
Here you go:
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
> They claimed that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 people
The claims appear to be founded: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
The claims appear to be founded: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
Even Human Rights Watch (anti-israel propaganda outlet at this point) has said it was a Palestinian rocket:
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
Qem(2)
> Setting aside the fact that these are numbers provided by Hamas
The UN and Lancet [0] believe the numbers are credible. Let's not forget there are likely 10k+ civilians still burried under rubble too.
> Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists
Come on, you are not commenting in good faith. There is zero credible evidence that any rape took place, Hamas have staunchly denied it, and from what returning hostages have said it seems incredibly unlikely. There is however an abundance of evidence that Israel is trying to use rape as attrocity propaganda.
> it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way
This is absolutely absurd - it's like telling a domestic violence victim it's their own fault.
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The UN and Lancet [0] believe the numbers are credible. Let's not forget there are likely 10k+ civilians still burried under rubble too.
> Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists
Come on, you are not commenting in good faith. There is zero credible evidence that any rape took place, Hamas have staunchly denied it, and from what returning hostages have said it seems incredibly unlikely. There is however an abundance of evidence that Israel is trying to use rape as attrocity propaganda.
> it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way
This is absolutely absurd - it's like telling a domestic violence victim it's their own fault.
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
What happened to “believe women?”
You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened?
“UN team says rape, gang rape likely occurred during Hamas attack on Israel”
UN: “The mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurred against some women and children during their time in captivity.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-...
https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploa...
You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened?
“UN team says rape, gang rape likely occurred during Hamas attack on Israel”
UN: “The mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurred against some women and children during their time in captivity.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-...
https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploa...
> What happened to “believe women?”
And where are the women whom we should believe?
> You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened
Firstly, the latest figure from Israel is that 695 Israeli civilians were killed, with the rest being security forces. Of those 695, many were armed settlers.
Secondly, the fact you assume rape did occur, especially in the total absence of any evidence, is bizarre, and suggests you may have some deeply-seated biases against Palestinians and/or Muslims.
As I explained in another comment here [0], the UN report is a farce insisted upon by Israel to aid in laundering their lurid attrocity propaganda. The report is not the result of an investigation, it simply regurgitates what Israel presented to Pramila Patten. From the report:
> As a result of the aforementioned challenges, it must be noted that the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of United Nations entities operating in Israel, as well as the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=GordonS#39629197
And where are the women whom we should believe?
> You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened
Firstly, the latest figure from Israel is that 695 Israeli civilians were killed, with the rest being security forces. Of those 695, many were armed settlers.
Secondly, the fact you assume rape did occur, especially in the total absence of any evidence, is bizarre, and suggests you may have some deeply-seated biases against Palestinians and/or Muslims.
As I explained in another comment here [0], the UN report is a farce insisted upon by Israel to aid in laundering their lurid attrocity propaganda. The report is not the result of an investigation, it simply regurgitates what Israel presented to Pramila Patten. From the report:
> As a result of the aforementioned challenges, it must be noted that the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of United Nations entities operating in Israel, as well as the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=GordonS#39629197
Where is your outrage for the ongoing rapes prior to october 7th and continuing to this day.
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/22/claims-of-isra...)
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/22/claims-of-isra...)
I abhor any rapes perpetuated against humans of any kind. Why are you deflecting my correction that GP’s “There is zero credible evidence that any rape took place” is wrong?
https://thegrayzone.com/2024/03/07/media-concocts-un-hamas-r...
“In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified,” the report concluded.
“In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified,” the report concluded.
gataca(2)
flyinglizard(1)
Jensson(1)
incognos(1)
I think it's a legit concern and it worries me too.
We can only go by the articles that users submit, and then only the subset we see, which is a function of (a) randomness and (b) users bringing specific cases to our attention. If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with. Why might that be? Well, there are a lot of possible reasons and people would most likely dispute about those as much as they do about the underlying topic.
For what it's worth (which may not be much), all I can tell you is that we want deeply, and are trying hard, to be even-handed. At the same time, we're not going to apply some sort of mechanical both-sides balancing because, although it might make things superficially easier in the short term, I don't think it would be in the spirit of the site, and we don't do that about anything else.
The even-handedness I'm talking about is probably easier to notice in our moderation of comments, so far, than of the articles. I feel pretty confident that we've done a good job of that [1], more than I am about the articles. Perhaps that's because there have been thousands of comments, but only a handful of frontpage articles, on the topic. One consistent lesson of HN is that you can't draw general conclusions from a handful of datapoints. It takes a lot more than that before reliable patterns show up.
What matters to me is that there be principles underlying the moderation and that these get applied equally. This isn't fully achievable because there's always interpretation involved—we don't get every call right. But I think the principles are the right ones for HN (I've explained what these are in the links mentioned above), and I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
I don't know how satisfactory this answer can possibly be but I hope it's at least clear that I hear you and care about the question.
[1] That is, when people break HN's rules in the comments, such as by posting flamebait or snark or personal attack, we flag and/or reply and/or ban irrespective of what the commenter is for or against. It might not appear that way to many readers who have strong passions on a topic, but it's not as hard to do as one might assume, especially after 10 years of practice.
We can only go by the articles that users submit, and then only the subset we see, which is a function of (a) randomness and (b) users bringing specific cases to our attention. If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with. Why might that be? Well, there are a lot of possible reasons and people would most likely dispute about those as much as they do about the underlying topic.
For what it's worth (which may not be much), all I can tell you is that we want deeply, and are trying hard, to be even-handed. At the same time, we're not going to apply some sort of mechanical both-sides balancing because, although it might make things superficially easier in the short term, I don't think it would be in the spirit of the site, and we don't do that about anything else.
The even-handedness I'm talking about is probably easier to notice in our moderation of comments, so far, than of the articles. I feel pretty confident that we've done a good job of that [1], more than I am about the articles. Perhaps that's because there have been thousands of comments, but only a handful of frontpage articles, on the topic. One consistent lesson of HN is that you can't draw general conclusions from a handful of datapoints. It takes a lot more than that before reliable patterns show up.
What matters to me is that there be principles underlying the moderation and that these get applied equally. This isn't fully achievable because there's always interpretation involved—we don't get every call right. But I think the principles are the right ones for HN (I've explained what these are in the links mentioned above), and I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
I don't know how satisfactory this answer can possibly be but I hope it's at least clear that I hear you and care about the question.
[1] That is, when people break HN's rules in the comments, such as by posting flamebait or snark or personal attack, we flag and/or reply and/or ban irrespective of what the commenter is for or against. It might not appear that way to many readers who have strong passions on a topic, but it's not as hard to do as one might assume, especially after 10 years of practice.
"If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with"
This really cannot be understated. HackerNews draws an educated demographic, which generally tends to be centrist, perhaps leaning a bit to the centre-left. Remember, this is based on demographics. Individual exceptions will occur but do not prove the rule.
The uncomfortable thing about political discussions is that most (not all) of them occur over things for which there isn't a clear-cut scientific consensus. If something is truly clear cut and self evident, then it usually won't turn into a political issue. You can set up an argument that is unassailable from one viewpoint but which crumbles from another. Two people who are reasonable and logical can have stark disagreements over political issues because of how they approach the issue. When people we respect and admire express political views that do not match our own, it can be disquieting.
The most important thing is to maintain respect for each other, even when we disagree. Political discussions on HackerNews usually don't descend into flame-wars, and I appreciate that. Perhaps you've hit on something important by limiting the frequency of such discussions. If they occur infrequently enough that they aren't a constant irritant, perhaps its easier for participants to keep their cool.
This really cannot be understated. HackerNews draws an educated demographic, which generally tends to be centrist, perhaps leaning a bit to the centre-left. Remember, this is based on demographics. Individual exceptions will occur but do not prove the rule.
The uncomfortable thing about political discussions is that most (not all) of them occur over things for which there isn't a clear-cut scientific consensus. If something is truly clear cut and self evident, then it usually won't turn into a political issue. You can set up an argument that is unassailable from one viewpoint but which crumbles from another. Two people who are reasonable and logical can have stark disagreements over political issues because of how they approach the issue. When people we respect and admire express political views that do not match our own, it can be disquieting.
The most important thing is to maintain respect for each other, even when we disagree. Political discussions on HackerNews usually don't descend into flame-wars, and I appreciate that. Perhaps you've hit on something important by limiting the frequency of such discussions. If they occur infrequently enough that they aren't a constant irritant, perhaps its easier for participants to keep their cool.
[deleted]
FWIW, it's also easy to claim HN is biased, because people are biased differently, and HN is close to global.
As a northern european, I for instance would say that I often find HN trend conservative, compared to the discourses in my country. But someone from a different part of the world could claim HN to lean progressive, based on their political environment.
So I don't think there is an easy way here. If one were to decide that HN should balance both-sides, who draws where the middle lies?
As a northern european, I for instance would say that I often find HN trend conservative, compared to the discourses in my country. But someone from a different part of the world could claim HN to lean progressive, based on their political environment.
So I don't think there is an easy way here. If one were to decide that HN should balance both-sides, who draws where the middle lies?
I agree with you. From my Southern European perspective, I don't find this site particularly "progressive" at all. I would describe most of the comments as liberal or centre-right.
And indeed, there is no solution here other than to be tolerant of other opinions, which may come from very different contexts than your own.
american foreign policy often becomes european union migration policy. just remember that, for example, when discussing international affairs.
Having said that, I have to say that HN is one of the communities that is better at dealing with different opinions, from different places. It's much harder on Reddit. On Metafilter, it is absolutely impossible: anything far from mainstream American liberalism is considered taboo.
And indeed, there is no solution here other than to be tolerant of other opinions, which may come from very different contexts than your own.
american foreign policy often becomes european union migration policy. just remember that, for example, when discussing international affairs.
Having said that, I have to say that HN is one of the communities that is better at dealing with different opinions, from different places. It's much harder on Reddit. On Metafilter, it is absolutely impossible: anything far from mainstream American liberalism is considered taboo.
That's a really important point which is unfortunately barely understood at all. I tried to write about it here one time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.
The only thing I'd add to your point is that while HN is certainly global (or let's say highly international), the community is still overwhelmingly from Western countries. (Not all hold pro-Western views, of course, but that's different.) This means that users from non-Western countries who want to contribute views that go against what is commonly believed in the West, have a hard time. We do what we can to help, but unfortunately it's not much, because the forces of large numbers and group psychology are unstoppable, especially together.
The only thing I'd add to your point is that while HN is certainly global (or let's say highly international), the community is still overwhelmingly from Western countries. (Not all hold pro-Western views, of course, but that's different.) This means that users from non-Western countries who want to contribute views that go against what is commonly believed in the West, have a hard time. We do what we can to help, but unfortunately it's not much, because the forces of large numbers and group psychology are unstoppable, especially together.
Well, there are things that cannot be bozt-sided:
Everything that violates human right for example. Or direct threats to democracy.
Everything that violates human right for example. Or direct threats to democracy.
I'd be interested in reading a thoughtful discussion on what happened to El Salvador in HN.
I haven't come across one yet.
I haven't come across one yet.
Some of us will happily take the non-normative side on things like this as well.
I take issue with people taking a "non-normative" approach on things like human rights. Especially if donso happily!
I like when people take issue with me, shame it rarely amounts to much more than the subsequent chaos that ensues because humans refuse to resolve their differences via communication.
dang - Productive and honest public discourse is arguably the most important issue in the world right now - arguably our greatest need. And that seems to depend on moderation.
Ideally, with sufficiently effective moderation technique any groups could be brought together and talk it out. We'll never reach that ideal but my point is, moderation has incredible potential value.
You've done a good job of it here, you're thoughtful about it, probably you have studied and learned more than fits in HN comments. You might do whatever research remains and write a book. I hope you will!
> I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
Probably you've thought of it, but it's not even-handed when strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others. OTOH, I appreciate that hot topics get a different level of scrutiny.
Ideally, with sufficiently effective moderation technique any groups could be brought together and talk it out. We'll never reach that ideal but my point is, moderation has incredible potential value.
You've done a good job of it here, you're thoughtful about it, probably you have studied and learned more than fits in HN comments. You might do whatever research remains and write a book. I hope you will!
> I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
Probably you've thought of it, but it's not even-handed when strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others. OTOH, I appreciate that hot topics get a different level of scrutiny.
I don't understand what you mean here:
> strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others
Can you explain?
> strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others
Can you explain?
Because you ask, I'll lay it out in more detail. But it's a general point that might not even apply in these cases (it's only two mod actions and so not a lot of data points) so I don't mean to over-emphasize it:
The two changes you listed and I quoted, while I think they improve the quality of those OPs, resulted from a level of scrutiny that seems higher than what most OPs receive.
Imagine Vim and Emacs users were again at odds. And imagine that Vim users raised every possible objection to Emacs OPs, resulting in a lot of extra scrutiny of the Emacs posts. Even if each mod action was even-handed, overall the actions wouldn't be even-handed between Vim and Emacs.
But as I said, the Gaza war is a very hot topic and extra scrutiny seems like a good idea. Anything that cuts down on unsubstantiated claims seems especially good.
The two changes you listed and I quoted, while I think they improve the quality of those OPs, resulted from a level of scrutiny that seems higher than what most OPs receive.
Imagine Vim and Emacs users were again at odds. And imagine that Vim users raised every possible objection to Emacs OPs, resulting in a lot of extra scrutiny of the Emacs posts. Even if each mod action was even-handed, overall the actions wouldn't be even-handed between Vim and Emacs.
But as I said, the Gaza war is a very hot topic and extra scrutiny seems like a good idea. Anything that cuts down on unsubstantiated claims seems especially good.
Thanks for the response. I guess i just don't understand why some political stories make it through, when the vast majority (like this one[1]) are rightfully flagged.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622270
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622270
If you look at the links I listed in my GP comment, I've posted quite a few explanations of how and when we turn off the flags on an article. If there's a question I haven't answered there, I'd like to know what it is.
Thank you for explaining this a bit more.
There are things sometimes that don't have two sides to balance out perspectives.
Not a lot of them, but there are for sure.
Difficult conversations often require the ability to reflect and contemplate on one's own understanding before being quick to validate it and reinforce it by putting it on others.
There are things sometimes that don't have two sides to balance out perspectives.
Not a lot of them, but there are for sure.
Difficult conversations often require the ability to reflect and contemplate on one's own understanding before being quick to validate it and reinforce it by putting it on others.
Saying something is biased on one side and therefore wrong or unfair is incorrect because it denies the idea of objective truth.
If there is no such thing as objective truth, then nobody has any foundation upon which to make any judgements, and therefore power alone becomes the ultimate arbiter or conflict.
The idea that there is no objective truth is a core tenet of fascism.
So in a "curious" place you would expect openness to new explanations, but you would also expect one-sided-ness because there is an objective truth to approach and the purpose of curiosity is to approach that truth.
If there is no objective truth, there is no reason to be curious.
If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to complain about one-sided-ness because what matters is our best approximation of the truth.
A quote from Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder's book: On Tyranny
If there is no such thing as objective truth, then nobody has any foundation upon which to make any judgements, and therefore power alone becomes the ultimate arbiter or conflict.
The idea that there is no objective truth is a core tenet of fascism.
So in a "curious" place you would expect openness to new explanations, but you would also expect one-sided-ness because there is an objective truth to approach and the purpose of curiosity is to approach that truth.
If there is no objective truth, there is no reason to be curious.
If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to complain about one-sided-ness because what matters is our best approximation of the truth.
A quote from Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder's book: On Tyranny
To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.
If nothing is true, then no one can criticize
power, because there is no basis upon which
to do so. If nothing is true, then all is
spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for
the most blinding lights.I agree with this.
With many social networks, we have many platforms to discuss politics directly. IMHO, HN should keep to tech and not politics, with an exception of politics related to tech (eg. EU trying to destroy e2e encryption,... again,... government hacks, etc).
We have literally everywhere else to pick sides and point fingers.
With many social networks, we have many platforms to discuss politics directly. IMHO, HN should keep to tech and not politics, with an exception of politics related to tech (eg. EU trying to destroy e2e encryption,... again,... government hacks, etc).
We have literally everywhere else to pick sides and point fingers.
I believe it is impossible to disentangle non-politics (tech included) from politics because that in itself is a political stance.
That's actually the only way to disentangle it - by disentangling it.
"colour-blindness is racism" is postmodernist garbage. Same for "everything is politics", a derivative of the same impulse.
You aren't employed to discuss the relative merits of the Hutus or the Tutsis, whether they're at peace or at war!
"colour-blindness is racism" is postmodernist garbage. Same for "everything is politics", a derivative of the same impulse.
You aren't employed to discuss the relative merits of the Hutus or the Tutsis, whether they're at peace or at war!
When people talk about "politics" they aren't talking about it conceptually. They are talking about the myriad of controversial topics that are fiercely argued about by state political leaders and prominent political parties. But that's a mouthful so we call it "politics".
Using the common meaning of "politics", it's very easy to sort the majority of subjects into "politics" and "non-politics".
Using the common meaning of "politics", it's very easy to sort the majority of subjects into "politics" and "non-politics".
It took me a while to understand that "not being into politics" or "a political" is still a form of politics.
Also, there is very little politics practiced without technology, so it can be harder to make it inextricable.
Also, there is very little politics practiced without technology, so it can be harder to make it inextricable.
> This platform for tech news should not become a place for political posts, nor even for posting regular news headlines.
What's a political post? What's "regular news"? And where do you draw the line? If not interested, you can just move on and ignore. There's plenty of AI articles all over the front page.
What's a political post? What's "regular news"? And where do you draw the line? If not interested, you can just move on and ignore. There's plenty of AI articles all over the front page.
What is the appropriate number of times to "just move on and ignore" before finally deciding to say something because the integrity of hn as a platform is at risk?
Is the integrity at risk from allowing difficult controversial subjects? Or from prohibiting them?
The latter. There are two recent topics that ended in flagging and really low quality doscussions, no curiosity, no open mindedness and sometimes utter disregard of human rights: Caste based discrimination and the war in Gaza. The latter usually has "pro-Gaza" submissions flagged even faster than the former had for stuff critizing castes and caste based discrimination.
I am torn, in the one hand those discussions are often rightfully flagged for the coments themselves. On the other hand, this shows a general social development I don't like, especially since HN used to be, or at least is suppossed to be, a place where even hairy topics can be discussed. And I think the "tech" community at large would only benefi from multiple views on those subjects.
I am torn, in the one hand those discussions are often rightfully flagged for the coments themselves. On the other hand, this shows a general social development I don't like, especially since HN used to be, or at least is suppossed to be, a place where even hairy topics can be discussed. And I think the "tech" community at large would only benefi from multiple views on those subjects.
There are not multiple views on subjects, that part is subjective, per se. There is objective truth which this site is trying to prevent via flagging and other ways to limit discussions. The whole point around HN is about tech news etc. is BS, to me at least, as there is no way to disentangle anything from politics as we live in the world ruled and controlled by such interests.
[deleted]
There is already a test described in the rules: “do you expect to read it on a headline of a major news outlet” if yes, it may not be of HN interest.
That would exclude, e.g., every senate hearing of big tech. Or anti-trust case against big tech. Not sure this argument holds up to scrutiny.
To be fair I would think a story about a huge corporate exec talking to stuffy congress would be the exact opposite of hacker news. Hackers don’t care about policy or stiffs in suits. Post open source software and projects involving actual hacking instead.
1. Is it the worst thing if the top level headlines for those cases aren’t here?
2. We have more than on heuristic. Those are specifically about tech.
It is not that difficult to identify a hot politcal topic that has nothing to do with tech, unless your judgement is motivated.
2. We have more than on heuristic. Those are specifically about tech.
It is not that difficult to identify a hot politcal topic that has nothing to do with tech, unless your judgement is motivated.
Add some faith (belief without proof, we all do it, and can't recognize it in ourselves or other ingroup members) and you are good to go...provided current planetary results are okay in your books I suppose.
It made a lot more sense back in 2010.
Perhaps. But if not us then who?
Maybe it's not a matter of who we are, but who we should be?
Easier said than done? Oh yeah, we're soft and lazy from a life diet high on - literally - coconvenience.
Put another way, when we collectively decide "we can't talk about X or Y" the control of that topic gets outsourced: outsourced to "leaders" who evidently are less capable.
In short, yes there is risk. But the alternatives consistently qualify as insanity.
Maybe it's not a matter of who we are, but who we should be?
Easier said than done? Oh yeah, we're soft and lazy from a life diet high on - literally - coconvenience.
Put another way, when we collectively decide "we can't talk about X or Y" the control of that topic gets outsourced: outsourced to "leaders" who evidently are less capable.
In short, yes there is risk. But the alternatives consistently qualify as insanity.
By reading the comments on this post I have learned about non-central hypergeometric distributions - which I didn't know about (and turn out to be relevant to a bunch of problems I am thinking about for my job).
HN readers and contributors at least try to think of themselves as the grown-ups in the room. So, by having conversations about contentious topics in a civilized and respectful way, we learn things.
HN readers and contributors at least try to think of themselves as the grown-ups in the room. So, by having conversations about contentious topics in a civilized and respectful way, we learn things.
For me this article raised a estimation problem that I deem as interesting as the German tank problem[1]. I took a crack at it. Wish to see what people with better statistical knowledge than me think of the data and the conclusions. I think my maths/stats intuition for problems like this is OK, but I lack rigour.
[1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
[1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
[deleted]
Unfortunately, everything is politics and politics is inescapable. "Ignoring politics" is also a political action and a political statement.
Indeed. Zone of Interest is a very impressive film that really explores the idea of ignoring politics.
No it isn't.
You are perhaps obligated to take an interest in your own democracy, although that doesn't mean you're obligated to inject it into your workplace and every facet of life.
You are by no means obligated to take an interest in wars on other continents.
Especially not to subject your poor coworkers to your Gell-Man Amnesia-ridden opinions on it!
You are perhaps obligated to take an interest in your own democracy, although that doesn't mean you're obligated to inject it into your workplace and every facet of life.
You are by no means obligated to take an interest in wars on other continents.
Especially not to subject your poor coworkers to your Gell-Man Amnesia-ridden opinions on it!
We see endless posts about the Chinese, the Russians and so on - now it is about Israel though so no more "political posts".
The article discussing Russia's invasion of Ukraine has received a significant amount of engagement and upvotes on Hacker News. To be frank, I didn't expect that you would share a similar comment about this particular topic, would you?
[deleted]
aaomidi(1)
Did you strongly disagree on the numerous posts related to Ukraine and Russia which have appeared on this forum in the past? or is it the topic that bothers you? You cannot close your eyes to event in which your country is complicit. Ignorance is not an excuse.
There is an interesting and delicate conversation about how a twenty-something engineer in the military ends up frequenting anti-military and anti-democracy subreddits. I think that fits in with hn.
There is another interesting and delicate conversation about what that person thought about Gaza and about Israeli Jews, and where those ideas came from. He posted on Reddit that Hamas's stated intent to destroy Israel - where 7 million Jews live - would not count as genocide. That is a higher percentage than the extermination of 6 million European Jews in the Holocaust, when there were more Jews alive than now.
He based this on the belief that Israel is a US and UK colony, which is hard to take seriously either literally (since it isn't) or figuratively (since none of the many non-middle-eastern waves of Jewish refugees came from the US or UK).
He also had a deeply held belief that the violence killing 1% of Palestinians in Gaza IS a genocide (and I think it's safe to assume that he fully accepted Hamas's claims that 30k people have died, and fully rejected IDF's claims that 12k of those were Hamas militants). So deeply held that he burned himself to death over it.
To me, the inconsistency of holding those two beliefs so strongly at the same time is a sign of antisemitism believed more deeply than I personally believe in anything. And that contradiction does not survive a moment's rational thought - to me at least. Which makes me assume that someone whose profession is built around thinking rationally was simply unable to think rationally about the Israel-Gaza conflict and see the inherent asymmetry of what he was saying.
So I think there is a discussion here. Not about whether he was right that the devastation in Gaza amounts to a genocide, or right about whether democracy is evil, or right about whether America is evil. But the limits of rationality compared to how engineers usually think about themselves, and whether we are more or less susceptible than anyone else when it comes to online echo chambers.
And it is incredibly hard to have that conversation without getting into flame wars. Or projecting our personal beliefs about the Israel/Palestine conflict to the point that it prevents useful discourse.
There is another interesting and delicate conversation about what that person thought about Gaza and about Israeli Jews, and where those ideas came from. He posted on Reddit that Hamas's stated intent to destroy Israel - where 7 million Jews live - would not count as genocide. That is a higher percentage than the extermination of 6 million European Jews in the Holocaust, when there were more Jews alive than now.
He based this on the belief that Israel is a US and UK colony, which is hard to take seriously either literally (since it isn't) or figuratively (since none of the many non-middle-eastern waves of Jewish refugees came from the US or UK).
He also had a deeply held belief that the violence killing 1% of Palestinians in Gaza IS a genocide (and I think it's safe to assume that he fully accepted Hamas's claims that 30k people have died, and fully rejected IDF's claims that 12k of those were Hamas militants). So deeply held that he burned himself to death over it.
To me, the inconsistency of holding those two beliefs so strongly at the same time is a sign of antisemitism believed more deeply than I personally believe in anything. And that contradiction does not survive a moment's rational thought - to me at least. Which makes me assume that someone whose profession is built around thinking rationally was simply unable to think rationally about the Israel-Gaza conflict and see the inherent asymmetry of what he was saying.
So I think there is a discussion here. Not about whether he was right that the devastation in Gaza amounts to a genocide, or right about whether democracy is evil, or right about whether America is evil. But the limits of rationality compared to how engineers usually think about themselves, and whether we are more or less susceptible than anyone else when it comes to online echo chambers.
And it is incredibly hard to have that conversation without getting into flame wars. Or projecting our personal beliefs about the Israel/Palestine conflict to the point that it prevents useful discourse.
> Hamas's claims that 30k people have died
That's not just Hamas's claim, that's the UN's claim, Amnesty international has this claim. There's plenty of independent thirds parties which hold this claim. The same cannot be said for the 12k militants claim, for which the idf has supplied no evidence, and is not repeated by independent third parties.
And beyond that, I don't think the belief that killing 1% of a population and displacing and injuring many more has much to do with any feelings towards any race. If the Belgians came into my country and killed 1% of everyone, I'd be pretty miffed, but that doesn't mean I have an ethnic hatred of Belgians.
That's not just Hamas's claim, that's the UN's claim, Amnesty international has this claim. There's plenty of independent thirds parties which hold this claim. The same cannot be said for the 12k militants claim, for which the idf has supplied no evidence, and is not repeated by independent third parties.
And beyond that, I don't think the belief that killing 1% of a population and displacing and injuring many more has much to do with any feelings towards any race. If the Belgians came into my country and killed 1% of everyone, I'd be pretty miffed, but that doesn't mean I have an ethnic hatred of Belgians.
Even the IDF uses those numbers. The number is likely much higher as it does not take into account those buried under the rubble - which cannot be reached without proper equipment.
In every legal system, intent without capacity is not considered to be intent. It is so laughable and pathetic, frankly, that you brought it up at all.
> It is so laughable and pathetic, frankly, that you brought it up at all.
If the claim you're making is "we should not bring up the fact that the Hamas' stated intent is to kill and/or deport every Jew in Israel because they don't have the capacity to do that"... I mean, I've seen variations of that claim before, but I still find it baffling.
(Standards disclaimers apply, the Hamas having genocidal intent doesn't justify the IDF's war crimes, etc.)
If the claim you're making is "we should not bring up the fact that the Hamas' stated intent is to kill and/or deport every Jew in Israel because they don't have the capacity to do that"... I mean, I've seen variations of that claim before, but I still find it baffling.
(Standards disclaimers apply, the Hamas having genocidal intent doesn't justify the IDF's war crimes, etc.)
jstarfish(1)
Condolences to his family, Aaron murdered a hero.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1234005058/what-we-know-about...
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1234005058/what-we-know-about...
Why do you classify his death as a murder and not a suicide? To me it just looked like a foolish act.
This line of reasoning is very similar to an infamous post where stackoverflow was used to promote the owners views on elections, and was a watershed moment in that site losing credibility and interest.
Noting that Israel already had a history of killing well-identified journalists outside of direct conflict; and lying about it: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/shireen-abu-...
Here's a wider review from the Committee to Protect Journalists that predates the current conflict: https://cpj.org/reports/2023/05/deadly-pattern-20-journalist...
Here's a wider review from the Committee to Protect Journalists that predates the current conflict: https://cpj.org/reports/2023/05/deadly-pattern-20-journalist...
Actually reading this article shows some heavy conjecture.
They talk about the existence of Pegasus software, and they talk about the fact that generically, it has been used in the world to track journalists.
They don't actually cite a single example of a Palestinian, much less a journalist, being tracked through Pegasus. Likewise, they say it "appears" that this data is then used for targeting but no indication as to what makes it appear that way.
The article is basically "spyware exists" - and the rest is pure speculation about how it could possibly be used but no evidence (mentioned) that it's used that way.
They talk about the existence of Pegasus software, and they talk about the fact that generically, it has been used in the world to track journalists.
They don't actually cite a single example of a Palestinian, much less a journalist, being tracked through Pegasus. Likewise, they say it "appears" that this data is then used for targeting but no indication as to what makes it appear that way.
The article is basically "spyware exists" - and the rest is pure speculation about how it could possibly be used but no evidence (mentioned) that it's used that way.
Thanks, that's a good point. The first few paragraphs alone say "allegedly", "believes", and "thought to have".
I've changed the link from https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/gaza-journalists-targeted-sp... (the submitted URL) to https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-..., which it points to. I've also changed the title to reflect the link change.
I've changed the link from https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/gaza-journalists-targeted-sp... (the submitted URL) to https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-..., which it points to. I've also changed the title to reflect the link change.
[1] is a good source for a list of people, and an explanation of how Citizen Lab determined the phones were infected by Pegasus.
[1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2021/11/devices-o...
[1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2021/11/devices-o...
'Love to see a graph age of the accounts posting here and their positions on this topic.
Being in the USA, I look at what I can do, and it's effectively nothing.
There's the whole movement to 'not support any Democrat candidate's during the primaries, which is wavering the non-committed around 8-15%.
Aside sending a vote message to Biden, I'm powerless to do more.
Honestly, the US govt needs to quit selling/giving/loaning weaponry to Israel. Won't solve the problem, but at least we wouldn't be supporting it.
I try to focus on problems I can do something about. This ain't one of them.
There's the whole movement to 'not support any Democrat candidate's during the primaries, which is wavering the non-committed around 8-15%.
Aside sending a vote message to Biden, I'm powerless to do more.
Honestly, the US govt needs to quit selling/giving/loaning weaponry to Israel. Won't solve the problem, but at least we wouldn't be supporting it.
I try to focus on problems I can do something about. This ain't one of them.
While the US violently cleansed the land of various indigenous peoples, there was no Internet through which stern condemnation could arrive. The Israelis have to do the same but broadcasted to every single person's palm. It's quite unfortunate for them, really. Sometimes you gotta help your little bro out.
I have little care about something that happened 100-300 years ago. I wasnt alive. My opinion has literally 0 bearing over stuff that's happened.
What I care about now is that we quit supporting Israel's own holocaust. Just because they had something horrible happen in the 1940's, doesn't mean they get "One Free Holocaust Ticket".
Let them fend for themselves. Sanction them. Run battleships in the Mediterranean to break the Gaza blockade. Basically we should put them in the proverbial time-out corner until they can behave like civilized adults.
What I care about now is that we quit supporting Israel's own holocaust. Just because they had something horrible happen in the 1940's, doesn't mean they get "One Free Holocaust Ticket".
Let them fend for themselves. Sanction them. Run battleships in the Mediterranean to break the Gaza blockade. Basically we should put them in the proverbial time-out corner until they can behave like civilized adults.
The continued existence of Israel in the Middle East is like fire underwater. Without a serious continous injection of energy, it'll die out instantly. Everything I've read hints that the Arabs will wipe them out completely if they don't have ~billions coming in from the US annually.
Look up how Arabs have historically treated Jews living on "their" land, and the various expulsions of Jews from modern Arab states. It paints a GRIM picture of a post-umbilical cord Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world
> Traditionally, Jews in the Muslim world ... were subjected to dhimmi status. They were afforded relative security against persecution, provided they did not contest the varying inferior social and legal status imposed on them under Islamic rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Musl...
> In 1945, there were between 758,000 and 866,000 Jews living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000.
I'm not taking a position on what the US should do in this post, but withdrawing support for Israel is definitely going to lead to horrific violence all the same.
Look up how Arabs have historically treated Jews living on "their" land, and the various expulsions of Jews from modern Arab states. It paints a GRIM picture of a post-umbilical cord Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world
> Traditionally, Jews in the Muslim world ... were subjected to dhimmi status. They were afforded relative security against persecution, provided they did not contest the varying inferior social and legal status imposed on them under Islamic rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Musl...
> In 1945, there were between 758,000 and 866,000 Jews living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000.
I'm not taking a position on what the US should do in this post, but withdrawing support for Israel is definitely going to lead to horrific violence all the same.
Israel has distracted the entire West from Ukraine and is mostly being driven by someone who seems to be more self-interested than anything else. The West has been played like a total fool and this is what Hamas wanted, to follow Israel into creating an unstable environment where we are now even bombing Yemen all while other countries like China continue to grow.
The fact that the attack happened right as relations were about to normalise with both Turkey and Saudi Arabia is all you need as evidence.
The fact that the attack happened right as relations were about to normalise with both Turkey and Saudi Arabia is all you need as evidence.
In my opinion a tristate solution is the best approach. If you want democracy and coexistence you go to the good place, if you want that not you goto the bad place.
Judgment not on group basis, but individual basis with massive surveillance as basis for review..
Could send the extremists of both sides to the bad place for bonus points.
Judgment not on group basis, but individual basis with massive surveillance as basis for review..
Could send the extremists of both sides to the bad place for bonus points.
Is it appropriate to call this a war?
To me it seems more like a nation state fighting a terrorist group, with heavy civilian losses.
To me it seems more like a nation state fighting a terrorist group, with heavy civilian losses.
> fighting a terrorist group
If you occupy territories for decades, with notable differences in the rights of those occupied, you get an insurgency. To me, "terrorism" doesn't really describe the situation well. There have certainly been specific incidents that fit that label, but plenty that look a lot more like plain old rebellion. There have also been acts from the Israelis that could be looked at as terroristic, if you subscribe to the definition of using violence and intimidation for political gain.
If you occupy territories for decades, with notable differences in the rights of those occupied, you get an insurgency. To me, "terrorism" doesn't really describe the situation well. There have certainly been specific incidents that fit that label, but plenty that look a lot more like plain old rebellion. There have also been acts from the Israelis that could be looked at as terroristic, if you subscribe to the definition of using violence and intimidation for political gain.
Yeah, if both parties have declared war against each other, I think it's fair to call it a war.
Besides, does it matter what you call it? It's a war for all intents and purposes.
Every war/invasion/special military operation is seemingly a "The good guys (me) against the bad guys/terrorists (you)" conflict, and if that's not war, I'm not sure what is.
Besides, does it matter what you call it? It's a war for all intents and purposes.
Every war/invasion/special military operation is seemingly a "The good guys (me) against the bad guys/terrorists (you)" conflict, and if that's not war, I'm not sure what is.
You cannot declare war on a territory you occupy and control. It is as if the United States declared war on Washington DC or any of their numerous prisons.
Israel neither occupied nor controlled the Gaza interior prior to Hamas' attack. They only controlled the border and what goes in and out of Gaza (some cross border tunnels excepted). Within Gaza, Hamas and the Palistinian National Authority ruled.
> They only controlled the border and what goes in and out of Gaza
"only" is used here to diminish the suffering of the Gazan people. Israel has had Gaza under a brutal blockade, across air, land and sea. They control everything that enters or leaves, and infamously were so cruel they counted the calories entering Gaza [0] [1]. Israel even claims control of the air over Gaza, and prevents civilians from collecting rainwater [2] [3] [4].
Israel has been enforcing collective punishment for decades - they want that land, and they want it only for themselves.
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-counted-calorie-require...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-c...
[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occu...
[3] https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-06-22/ty-article/.premi...
[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/10/debunking-some-...
"only" is used here to diminish the suffering of the Gazan people. Israel has had Gaza under a brutal blockade, across air, land and sea. They control everything that enters or leaves, and infamously were so cruel they counted the calories entering Gaza [0] [1]. Israel even claims control of the air over Gaza, and prevents civilians from collecting rainwater [2] [3] [4].
Israel has been enforcing collective punishment for decades - they want that land, and they want it only for themselves.
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-counted-calorie-require...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-c...
[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occu...
[3] https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-06-22/ty-article/.premi...
[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/10/debunking-some-...
Damn, I didn't know that Israeli troops also controlled Egypt.
Israel certainly has agreements and treaties with Egypt that would make it difficult for Egypt not to do what the Israelis say regarding the border. Agreements and treaties made at a time and situation where Egypt didn't have much leverage.
Egypt is not free, for example, to allow aid in that Israel has not specifically approved.
Egypt is not free, for example, to allow aid in that Israel has not specifically approved.
> Egypt is not free, for example, to allow aid in that Israel has not specifically approved.
Yes it is. You can't just make stuff up and lie to people.
What makes you think that's okay? Because you feel it's 'for the right cause?
Yes it is. You can't just make stuff up and lie to people.
What makes you think that's okay? Because you feel it's 'for the right cause?
You can read quotes from Israeli officials about their approval process for the Rafah crossing. They've also bombed the crossing when they feel like the process isn't being followed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypts-sisi-accuse...
Aside from Israeli quotes, the above article includes Sisi's comments on the process.
If you have some credible source saying Egypt can get goods into Gaza without Israeli approval, I'd love to see it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypts-sisi-accuse...
Aside from Israeli quotes, the above article includes Sisi's comments on the process.
If you have some credible source saying Egypt can get goods into Gaza without Israeli approval, I'd love to see it.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that statement, but I guess you're somehow implying it's not US-backed Israel's fault that they prevents legitimate goods (such as crayons, seeds, fishing rods etc) from entering Gaza... because Egypt?
Whataboutism aside, it's well known that US-backed Israel is indeed largely in control of what Egypt does and does not do in regard to Gaza.
Whataboutism aside, it's well known that US-backed Israel is indeed largely in control of what Egypt does and does not do in regard to Gaza.
It's not whataboutism!
If you said the only way to cross the Atlantic was by boat and I said you could fly that's not whataboutism
> it's well known that US-backed Israel is indeed largely in control of what Egypt does
No it's not. You can't just make stuff up
If you said the only way to cross the Atlantic was by boat and I said you could fly that's not whataboutism
> it's well known that US-backed Israel is indeed largely in control of what Egypt does
No it's not. You can't just make stuff up
They did both... They control everything that goes in and out of gaza:
I quote from MSNBC "Despite pleas from the United Nations and human rights groups, Israel has maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007 that has had a devastating effect on Palestinian civilians."
How do you rule if you control nothing? all the utilities are controlled by Israel. Travel, nope, controlled by Israel. Exports, nope, controlled by Israel. What are they ruling?
Israel created Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority - which itself is severely corrupt and complacent. People are seeking a better life. How else do you think Trump got elected? was he the better candidate? (and yes, I did just conflate Trump and Hamas)
I quote from MSNBC "Despite pleas from the United Nations and human rights groups, Israel has maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007 that has had a devastating effect on Palestinian civilians."
How do you rule if you control nothing? all the utilities are controlled by Israel. Travel, nope, controlled by Israel. Exports, nope, controlled by Israel. What are they ruling?
Israel created Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority - which itself is severely corrupt and complacent. People are seeking a better life. How else do you think Trump got elected? was he the better candidate? (and yes, I did just conflate Trump and Hamas)
I think it would be appropriate to put Hamas leadership, Trump, Biden and Bibi all in there along with a host of others. They're all produced by the same awful games that reward powerful, reprehensible men, promoting even those with majority disapproval to the top of the chain.
Technically I think Israel declared war on Hamas, not Palestine. Similarly, Palestine hasn't declared war on Israel, but Hamas has.
"Actions speak louder than words."
And then the same vagueness is the same tactics used by the most well funded, the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever - to make people think being against the actions of their current Israeli government, e.g. war crimes they're committing and have been committing, is anti-Semitism.
And then the same vagueness is the same tactics used by the most well funded, the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever - to make people think being against the actions of their current Israeli government, e.g. war crimes they're committing and have been committing, is anti-Semitism.
Would it not be a _civil_ war?
How is it a terrorist group? The nation state you are referring to is an occupying colonialist state. This same "state" is an apartheid state and not a democracy. You just have to scratch a little under the surface to see it. The nightly raids in the west bank. The concentration camp referred to as Gaza - where this "state" controls all utilities and imports. Hold anyone under your thumb for long enough and they will do their best to get out from under it. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction (Newton's Law of Motion seems to aptly fit)
Slaughtering a bunch of dancers at a festival seems congruent with terrorism to me.
Your argument seems to be: it's okay to do terrorist things if someone makes you. But that's still terrorism.
Your argument seems to be: it's okay to do terrorist things if someone makes you. But that's still terrorism.
> Slaughtering a bunch of dancers at a festival seems congruent with terrorism to me.
There's evidence many of them were killed by friendly fire, to avoid capture and the need for hostage swaps. See:
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/18526
https://www.oct7factcheck.com/oct7factcheck/Friendly-fire-Is...
https://w.ynet.co.il/yediot/7-days/time-of-darkness
There's evidence many of them were killed by friendly fire, to avoid capture and the need for hostage swaps. See:
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/18526
https://www.oct7factcheck.com/oct7factcheck/Friendly-fire-Is...
https://w.ynet.co.il/yediot/7-days/time-of-darkness
I recall seeing this shortly after Oct 7; though at that time it was difficult to distinguish whether it was propaganda.
I think the Hannibal Directive is not great, but at the same time the Israelis wouldn't have committed those acts had the terrorists not crossed into Isreal intending to do terrorist things.
It's terrorism whether you invade to kidnapp civilians or to murder them, and they're was plenty of civilian murdering happening that day as well.
Even if Isreal goaded them into doing it to justify genocide, it's still Hamas who decided to do the terrorism.
I think the Hannibal Directive is not great, but at the same time the Israelis wouldn't have committed those acts had the terrorists not crossed into Isreal intending to do terrorist things.
It's terrorism whether you invade to kidnapp civilians or to murder them, and they're was plenty of civilian murdering happening that day as well.
Even if Isreal goaded them into doing it to justify genocide, it's still Hamas who decided to do the terrorism.
[deleted]
would special military operation be a better term?
There is nothing I could say here that would not offend someone, because that's how bad the discourse is around this war. So I'm biting my tongue.
What I'm REALLY saying is that it's inappropriate for HN. It's a human story, for sure, but...
What I'm REALLY saying is that it's inappropriate for HN. It's a human story, for sure, but...
Israel prevents foreign journalists from entering Gaza to cover the conflict - that fact alone should cast heavy doubt on their intentions.
Many journalists appear to have been deliberately targeted: killed by snipers, bombed while sleeping in their own homes, or hit by airstrikes while travelling.
Many journalists appear to have been deliberately targeted: killed by snipers, bombed while sleeping in their own homes, or hit by airstrikes while travelling.
Archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20240303014749/https://pressgazet...
> Around 10% of Gaza's journalists have been killed versus 2.5% of healthcare workers.
These figures are insane! The number of journalists killed crossed the threshold where Gaza journalists can be declared officially decimated, according to the historical definition of the term as 1/10 killed[1]. I noticed if we plot the journalist killings against general population killings in Gaza, the graph deviates from an approximately straight line that might be expected if journalists were merely being killed as a result of "collateral damage" amidst indiscriminated bombings, and I got nerd sniped[2] by the question: Do data give any clues Israel purposefully targets journalists, beyond the large values[3]?
After spending some days grappling with it, I think the shape of data supports it, as displayed here:
Graph: https://imgur.com/a/SWNSYOn Journalist killing data: https://pastebin.com/S1ykpSMR (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...) General population killing data: https://pastebin.com/EGq6cgH8 (from https://www.ochaopt.org/)
Discussion:
Looking at the plot of the ratio of journalists killed by israeli forces over all killed, it appears to be slightly decreasing over time instead of keeping constant. My working hypothesis is, as journalists are dispoportionally targeted, their numbers get comparatively depleted over time, making slightly harder to kill more journalists. This can be modelled as an urn problem[4], when each ball colour has different odds of being drawn, in addition to being present in different numbers. But instead of black/white balls, we have people, and instead of being drawn out from an urn, they are drawn out of life, by being shot at[5], shelled, bombed, run over by bulldozers[6], et cetera. The urn problem with different weights on each color can be modeled by a noncentral hypergeometric distribution[7], either Wallenius' noncentral hypergeometric distribution[8], for the case where balls are sampled one by one in such a way that there is competition between the balls, or Fisher's noncentral hypergeometric distribution[9], for the case where the balls are sampled simultaneously or independently of each other.
There's some disagreement on published numbers of killed journalists. For example, the Comitee to Protect Journalists counts around 90 jornalists killed[10]. The Euro-Med Monitor over 130[11]. I'm not sure about the causes of this disagreement, but I suspect is due to who is counted as journalist, only people that actualy write reports and give face and voice to established news sources, or also their supporting crews (camera men, fixers, drivers...) and freelancers. In doubt I used data extracted from a table given by wikipedia[12], that is closer to the more conservative estimate given by CPJ and lists individual names and sources. The pattern of journalists killed each day in the dataset (1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 6, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) indicates they're taken down mostly one at a time, and even large individual massacres, like the recent flour bag massacre[13], kills less than 1/10000 of the total population from Gaza Strip each, so Wallenius' distribution should approximate it better. In fact, it appears it is more likely for journalists to be killed together with their families at home than together with other journalists doing fieldwork, as we can infer by reading the entries in the description field of the table. For the figures on the whole strip, I collected daily reports published in the site of United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and scraped some barcharts[14].
1/3 (continues)
> Around 10% of Gaza's journalists have been killed versus 2.5% of healthcare workers.
These figures are insane! The number of journalists killed crossed the threshold where Gaza journalists can be declared officially decimated, according to the historical definition of the term as 1/10 killed[1]. I noticed if we plot the journalist killings against general population killings in Gaza, the graph deviates from an approximately straight line that might be expected if journalists were merely being killed as a result of "collateral damage" amidst indiscriminated bombings, and I got nerd sniped[2] by the question: Do data give any clues Israel purposefully targets journalists, beyond the large values[3]?
After spending some days grappling with it, I think the shape of data supports it, as displayed here:
Graph: https://imgur.com/a/SWNSYOn Journalist killing data: https://pastebin.com/S1ykpSMR (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...) General population killing data: https://pastebin.com/EGq6cgH8 (from https://www.ochaopt.org/)
Discussion:
Looking at the plot of the ratio of journalists killed by israeli forces over all killed, it appears to be slightly decreasing over time instead of keeping constant. My working hypothesis is, as journalists are dispoportionally targeted, their numbers get comparatively depleted over time, making slightly harder to kill more journalists. This can be modelled as an urn problem[4], when each ball colour has different odds of being drawn, in addition to being present in different numbers. But instead of black/white balls, we have people, and instead of being drawn out from an urn, they are drawn out of life, by being shot at[5], shelled, bombed, run over by bulldozers[6], et cetera. The urn problem with different weights on each color can be modeled by a noncentral hypergeometric distribution[7], either Wallenius' noncentral hypergeometric distribution[8], for the case where balls are sampled one by one in such a way that there is competition between the balls, or Fisher's noncentral hypergeometric distribution[9], for the case where the balls are sampled simultaneously or independently of each other.
There's some disagreement on published numbers of killed journalists. For example, the Comitee to Protect Journalists counts around 90 jornalists killed[10]. The Euro-Med Monitor over 130[11]. I'm not sure about the causes of this disagreement, but I suspect is due to who is counted as journalist, only people that actualy write reports and give face and voice to established news sources, or also their supporting crews (camera men, fixers, drivers...) and freelancers. In doubt I used data extracted from a table given by wikipedia[12], that is closer to the more conservative estimate given by CPJ and lists individual names and sources. The pattern of journalists killed each day in the dataset (1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 6, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) indicates they're taken down mostly one at a time, and even large individual massacres, like the recent flour bag massacre[13], kills less than 1/10000 of the total population from Gaza Strip each, so Wallenius' distribution should approximate it better. In fact, it appears it is more likely for journalists to be killed together with their families at home than together with other journalists doing fieldwork, as we can infer by reading the entries in the description field of the table. For the figures on the whole strip, I collected daily reports published in the site of United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and scraped some barcharts[14].
1/3 (continues)
> I noticed if we plot the journalist killings against general population killings in Gaza, the graph deviates from an approximately straight line that might be expected if journalists were merely being killed as a result of "collateral damage" amidst indiscriminated bombings
I think this assumption is wrong. Journalists are known to try to get the most shocking photos and reports. I would expect their rates of injury compared to random Joes in similar situations to be similar to that of people doing extreme sports compared to people doing recreational sports.
I think this assumption is wrong. Journalists are known to try to get the most shocking photos and reports. I would expect their rates of injury compared to random Joes in similar situations to be similar to that of people doing extreme sports compared to people doing recreational sports.
There should be some level of occupational hazard, but surely not 3x as high when compared to people actually engaged in combat (Journalist:~75:1; Hamas militant:~25:1), and high enough to greatly deplete their numbers.
In those figures, "Hamas militant" actually means adult man. Nobody is identifying every person killed and checking against a list of Hamas members, they're just claiming every man killed belonged to Hamas.
Is there a way to verify this? I tend to agree, but I have no way to be rigorously convinced.
For example, iirc Palestine health authority reports the names of all the civilians[0] that have been killed. I think the number is something like 30k. I frequently wonder if that number is simply exaggerated, as it would be in Palestine's interest to do so. However, if the number is supported by a corresponding list of the names of individuals, I would think the Israeli intelligence services would be incentivised and capable of refuting a significant enough number of false claims[1] to cast serious doubt upon the claimed number of civilian deaths.
To my knowledge, Israel has not done so, and so I don't doubt the number too much.
[0] As noted, it is extremely challenging to pin down whether or not someone is 'Hamas'. I assume Palestine is reporting all deaths as civilian, in the same way Israel seems to report them all as combatant.
[1] whether it is an individual that does not exist, perished prior to Oct 7. '23, or is still alive.
For example, iirc Palestine health authority reports the names of all the civilians[0] that have been killed. I think the number is something like 30k. I frequently wonder if that number is simply exaggerated, as it would be in Palestine's interest to do so. However, if the number is supported by a corresponding list of the names of individuals, I would think the Israeli intelligence services would be incentivised and capable of refuting a significant enough number of false claims[1] to cast serious doubt upon the claimed number of civilian deaths.
To my knowledge, Israel has not done so, and so I don't doubt the number too much.
[0] As noted, it is extremely challenging to pin down whether or not someone is 'Hamas'. I assume Palestine is reporting all deaths as civilian, in the same way Israel seems to report them all as combatant.
[1] whether it is an individual that does not exist, perished prior to Oct 7. '23, or is still alive.
AFAIK, and I've seen news articles saying the same, Israel has not provided any evidence for its claim to have killed 12,000 Hamas fighters.
But the latest reported death toll is over 30k, 22k of whom are women and children. Another 10k or more are missing and presumed dead. If about one-third of the missing are adult men, matching the ratio of deaths, then about 12k adult men are dead or missing.
Is it plausible that Israel is so precise that all the adult men they've killed were Hamas fighters?
But the latest reported death toll is over 30k, 22k of whom are women and children. Another 10k or more are missing and presumed dead. If about one-third of the missing are adult men, matching the ratio of deaths, then about 12k adult men are dead or missing.
Is it plausible that Israel is so precise that all the adult men they've killed were Hamas fighters?
> Is it plausible that Israel is so precise that all the adult men they've killed were Hamas fighters?
We know from some of their previous actions in the region that they could be, if they wanted to - we've seen them take out individual aparment units with missiles, for example.
But given how many unguided munitions Israel are using in Gaza... I mean, almost the whole of Gaza has been reduced to rubble - the idea that every military-age male is Hamas is just not credible.
We know from some of their previous actions in the region that they could be, if they wanted to - we've seen them take out individual aparment units with missiles, for example.
But given how many unguided munitions Israel are using in Gaza... I mean, almost the whole of Gaza has been reduced to rubble - the idea that every military-age male is Hamas is just not credible.
There is an article published in The Lanced where they investigated this. They found no evidence of inflated numbers. But if later they are found inflated anyway, this makes the high number of journalists killed more of an anomaly, not less.
[1]. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
[1]. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Yes unfortunately those are the identified and confirmed deaths, there are for sure many still buried under the rubble which are not accounted for.
Unfortunately it seems to be in Palestine's (and even Hamas) best interest to be truthful, in this case
Unfortunately it seems to be in Palestine's (and even Hamas) best interest to be truthful, in this case
Is there a way to calculate significance of the fit? I.e. something similar to the Student's t-test?
Surely there is, but I still didn't figure out how to. I'm not used to work with this Wallenius distribution (indeed, I discovered it existed a few days ago, while working on this problem). To get some semblance of error bars, I just took max/min overs a couple tens of runner ups. But I explained in detail the assumptions in my reasoning and posted the source code for my analysis, so people with better statistical shops than me can replicate and improve upon it.
But the uncertainty here probably is dominated by uncertainty in the inputs. I used the lower estimates for journalists deaths, about 90 on 01/03. But some organizations publish figures as high as 130. The uncertainty in total deaths also high, I would not be surprised if 1.5-2x higher, given all missing people.
But the uncertainty here probably is dominated by uncertainty in the inputs. I used the lower estimates for journalists deaths, about 90 on 01/03. But some organizations publish figures as high as 130. The uncertainty in total deaths also high, I would not be surprised if 1.5-2x higher, given all missing people.
SciPy stats includes a Wallenius’ discrete random variable[15], that takes four parameters on its creation: M is the total number of subjects, n is the number of Type I subjects (journalists), and odds is the odds ratio: the odds of killing a journalist rather than a non-journalist when there is only one individual of each. The random variate represents the number of journalists that end dead if Israeli forces kills pre-determined x people from Gaza Strip one by one. The total population in the strip (M) is approximately known. x is known from OCHA daily stats. For the effective population of journalists (n) and odds ratio (odds) we can use Wallenius' to test several value pairs and check which best fit the data. From the article we can estimate the membership of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate at 1200. That is a upper bound on the effective number of journalists, taking into account the likely inclusion of supporting staff and the many professionals forced to flee the Strip[16], sometimes after receiving explicit threats[17]. About the odds ratio, the current body count is about 1.3% of the total population in the Strip. Meanwhile, US estimates about 20%-30% of the 30000 strong Hamas forces were killed[18]. This number is probably exaggerated, as it implies every dead male in the age bracket around 13-60 is being counted as a Hamas militant, but for the sake of iron-manning the argument, let's assume those figures are true. That means the average Hamas militant is about 20:1 to 30:1 times more likely to be killed than a random person. So we should expect jurnalists' odds ratio to sit between somewhere between random citizen and Hamas militant, taking into account occupational hazards but not deliberate targeting. In doubt I took 100:1 as an upper bound, and wrote a model (source bellow).
The best fit I got over the search grid had an effective journalist population of 155 and odds ratio of 75:1. As the data is noisy, I took the top 20 matches to have some idea of error intervals, and got ranges of 135 - 205 effective population and 51 - 96 odds ratio. The odds ratio is larger than our estimate for Hamas militants, indicating that in fact Israeli forces are busier targeting journalists than Hamas militants. Even if we assume the total kill counts are underestimates, given all people missing under the rubble and lack of proper rescue work due to targeting of rescue crews, say, adding a xs = [2*x for x in xs] line after the first definition of xs, to double the total counts, we still get killing odds for journalists equal or greater than for militants.
[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) [2]. https://xkcd.com/356/ [3]. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/global-media-outle... [4]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urn_problem [5]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68445973 [6]. https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6202/Israeli-tanks-hav... [7]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncentral_hypergeometric_dist... [8]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenius%27_noncentral_hyperg... [9]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_noncentral_hypergeo... [10]. https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... [11]. https://twitter.com/EuroMedHR/status/1761121386347516095 [12]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_... [13]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Rashid_humanitarian_aid_inc... [14]. https://www.ochaopt.org/ [15]. https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.s... [16]. https://www.instagram.com/byplestia/p/Cz9MfelKk3x/ [17]. https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/516373.aspx [18]. https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-said-to-believe-israel-kill...
2/3 (Continues)
The best fit I got over the search grid had an effective journalist population of 155 and odds ratio of 75:1. As the data is noisy, I took the top 20 matches to have some idea of error intervals, and got ranges of 135 - 205 effective population and 51 - 96 odds ratio. The odds ratio is larger than our estimate for Hamas militants, indicating that in fact Israeli forces are busier targeting journalists than Hamas militants. Even if we assume the total kill counts are underestimates, given all people missing under the rubble and lack of proper rescue work due to targeting of rescue crews, say, adding a xs = [2*x for x in xs] line after the first definition of xs, to double the total counts, we still get killing odds for journalists equal or greater than for militants.
[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) [2]. https://xkcd.com/356/ [3]. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/global-media-outle... [4]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urn_problem [5]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68445973 [6]. https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6202/Israeli-tanks-hav... [7]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncentral_hypergeometric_dist... [8]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenius%27_noncentral_hyperg... [9]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_noncentral_hypergeo... [10]. https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... [11]. https://twitter.com/EuroMedHR/status/1761121386347516095 [12]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_... [13]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Rashid_humanitarian_aid_inc... [14]. https://www.ochaopt.org/ [15]. https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.s... [16]. https://www.instagram.com/byplestia/p/Cz9MfelKk3x/ [17]. https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/516373.aspx [18]. https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-said-to-believe-israel-kill...
2/3 (Continues)
3/3 (Source code used for analysis)
import csv
from collections import Counter
from datetime import date, timedelta
from itertools import accumulate, islice
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from scipy.stats import nchypergeom_wallenius
from statistics import linear_regression
def batched(iterable, n):
# batched('ABCDEFG', 3) --> ABC DEF G
if n < 1:
raise ValueError('n must be at least one')
it = iter(iterable)
while batch := tuple(islice(it, n)):
yield batch
def dateab(a, b):
# Lists dates from day a to day b.
i = 0
while (c := a + timedelta(days = i)) <= b:
yield c.isoformat()
i += 1
def reader(file):
with open(file, newline='', encoding='utf-8') as csvfile:
for row in csv.reader(csvfile, delimiter=';', quotechar='"'):
yield row[0:2]
def sum_absdiff(iter1, iter2):
# Compute absolute differences sum between vectors, as error measure.
return sum(abs(x - y) for x, y in zip(iter1, iter2))
days = list(dateab(date(2023, 10, 7), date(2024, 3, 1)))
weeks = [e for e in batched(days, 7) if len(e) == 7]
total_killings = [(d, int(n)) for d, n in islice(reader('gs_cummulative_total_killings.csv'), 1, None)]
d = dict(total_killings)
xs = list(max(d.setdefault(e, 0) for e in week) for week in weeks)
journalist_killings = [t[0] for t in reader('gaza_strip_journalists_killed.csv')]
c = Counter(journalist_killings)
ys = list(accumulate(sum(c.setdefault(e, 0) for e in week) for week in weeks))
slope, intercept = linear_regression(xs, ys, proportional=True)
fitted = [slope * x + intercept for x in xs]
print('Linear regression parameters: slope =', slope, ';', 'intercept =', intercept, '\n')
M = 2375259 # 2022 population estimate (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip)
ns = [i for i in range(1, 1200) if i % 5 == 0]
odds = [i for i in range(1, 100) if i % 3 == 0]
candidate_store = {}
for n in ns:
for odd in odds:
L = []
for x in xs:
r = nchypergeom_wallenius(M, n, x, odd).mean()
L.append(r)
candidate_store[(n, odd)] = L[:]
best_wallenius_fit = min(candidate_store, key= lambda e: sum_absdiff(candidate_store[e], ys))
print('n, odds (best Wallenius fit):', best_wallenius_fit, '\n')
top_20 = sorted(candidate_store, key= lambda e: sum_absdiff(candidate_store[e], ys))[:20]
print('Top 20 (n, odds):', top_20, '\n')
top_20_ns = [e[0] for e in top_20]
top_20_odds = [e[1] for e in top_20]
print('Top 20 n variation in range:', min(top_20_ns), '-', max(top_20_ns))
print('Top 20 odds variation in range:', min(top_20_odds), '-', max(top_20_odds))
fig, ax1 = plt.subplots()
ax1.plot(xs, ys, label='Available data')
ax1.plot(xs, fitted, label='Linear regression fit')
ax1.plot(xs, candidate_store[best_wallenius_fit], label='Wallenius\' distribution fit')
ax1.set_xlabel('General population (source: ochaopt.org)')
ax1.set_ylabel('Journalists (source: wikipedia.org)')
ax1.set_title('Cummulative killings by Israeli forces in Gaza Strip\n2023-10-07 to 2024-03-01')
ax1.legend()
plt.show()
Output (in addition to figure above): Python 3.11.8 (main, Feb 7 2024, 00:00:00) [GCC 13.2.1 20231011 (Red Hat 13.2.1-4)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.
========== RESTART: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ==========
Linear regression parameters: slope = 0.00344597608865967 ; intercept = 0.0
n, odds (best Wallenius fit): (155, 75)
Top 20 (n, odds): [(155, 75), (160, 72), (145, 84), (165, 69), (170, 66), (150, 78), (175, 63), (140, 87), (135, 93), (150, 81), (185, 60), (140, 90), (180, 60), (190, 57), (195, 54), (200, 54), (135, 96), (180, 63), (205, 51), (185, 57)]
Top 20 n variation in range: 135 - 205
Top 20 odds variation in range: 51 - 96For context, a total of 69 journalists were killed in WWII, 63 in the Vietnam war both of which lasted several years. As of today March 6th 2024, the Gaza invasion has left 86 journalists dead in less than 4 months. That is an amazingly high percentage for the expected mean in a conflict.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/israel...
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-jour...
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/world/middleeast/30embed....
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/israel...
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-jour...
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/world/middleeast/30embed....
That may be true but a couple things have changed since those very dated sample points. (1) Definition of journalist (2) quantity of journalists (3) willingness to be on the very front lines in order to get better stories (4) technology enabling journalists thus being able to be more dangerous spots. (5) speculation -> journalists who are using press credentials as cover
I'm neither way on the conflict but want to correct some of your arguments assumptions that lead your conclusion astray.
I'm neither way on the conflict but want to correct some of your arguments assumptions that lead your conclusion astray.
Yes if you google 'how many journalists died in WW2' in Russian you get numbers from a couple of hundred to over a thousand for the Soviet Union alone. The 69 number listed at https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/world/middleeast/30embed.... is almost certainly just US journalists.
The vast majority of all deaths in the WW2 were Soviet. The Soviet Union really deserves the gold medal position for winning WW2.
Tbf, a lot of those victims were due to dubious strategic choices. They could have probably conceded Stalingrad, for example, and refused to simply because of the propaganda angle. That battle alone was an absolute meat-grinder, and didn't really have to be.
But yes, the overall cost in human lives was higher for the Soviet Union than for any other country or federation.
But yes, the overall cost in human lives was higher for the Soviet Union than for any other country or federation.
Stalingard was a trap for the 6th Army, which was beyond overextended and undersupplied. I have a strong prior that giving up Stalingrad and allowing Germans and their allies to resupply would've caused even more causalties, especially considering the Soviets would have had to attack over Volga. That final Russian bridgehead in Stalingrad was a horrible place, I imagine.
brtln(2)
> (1) Definition of journalist (2) quantity of journalists (3) willingness to be on the very front lines in order to get better stories (4) technology enabling journalists thus being able to be more dangerous spots.
How have these things changed, and how have the changes affected the number of journalists killed? The changes could reduce the number.
My point is, we need much less speculation and possibilities, and much more credible fact. CPJ provides some credible fact.
How have these things changed, and how have the changes affected the number of journalists killed? The changes could reduce the number.
My point is, we need much less speculation and possibilities, and much more credible fact. CPJ provides some credible fact.
Internet does not allow nearly all to be publishers? Does not foster many small online news sources? Has number of news sources not gone up with rise of the internet? Outsourcing of news collection by global news sources to (technology connected) hired locals has not gone up? Number doing (and claiming to be doing) journalism has not gone up?
TFA has a list of those included, who they worked for, and the circumstances of their death. I saw one that was only credited with having a podcast (which has 225k followers on their instagram account,) and a few others that seemed to work for smaller local websites and whatnot, but it seems like the vast majority had affiliations with established news agencies.
But the claim isn't that a guy who happened to be on TikTok at the time was hit by a bomb.
The claim is Israel is killing people in bright blue vests marked PRESS and in cars with PRESS written across the sides and roof.
The claim is Israel is killing people in bright blue vests marked PRESS and in cars with PRESS written across the sides and roof.
Are we seeing the same percentage of journalists killed by the Russian army in Ukraine?
Totally different war structure.
The onus of protecting journalists (and medical workers) falls on the military regardless of how difficult the war they’re trying to prosecute is.
How many journalists did the US kill in 20 years of OEF/OIF?
How many journalists did the US kill in 20 years of OEF/OIF?
I think the argument is that its a lot easier to protect journalists if there are very few journalists in the war zone, so absolute numbers are the wrong way to look at it.
Essentially base rate fallacy.
Essentially base rate fallacy.
Thirteen for OIF: https://cpj.org/reports/2006/01/js-killed-by-us-13sept05/
So you don’t think there is a difference between a huge front across a country, and a tiny blob of very densely packed land, with a huge population density? Just something as simple as the chance of a bomb exploding near you is significantly higher in case of one.
I think the US chose not to level Baghdad and if it had, it would’ve been at least as catastrophic as what’s going on in Gaza. So no it’s not merely a matter of a different situation, it’s a matter of different decisions.
I'm not condoning the death of anyone.
I am however pointing out the very significant differences between what the original comment is referring to and what is happening and what might be driving the largest (if true) difference in numbers.
I am however pointing out the very significant differences between what the original comment is referring to and what is happening and what might be driving the largest (if true) difference in numbers.
I didn’t say you were. I am pointing out a more directly analogous war to demonstrate that similar militaries have waged similar wars against similar adversaries for far, far greater spans of time yielding far fewer journalist deaths.
I am also pointing out that “this war is extra hard to prosecute” is not actually justification for certain actions. The difficulty of fighting the war falls on the people fighting the war, including the difficulty of protecting civilians during that war. What else would any standards or laws mean if that weren’t the case? The whole premise of these standards is to set a ceiling on what sort of awful conditions can be allowed during warfare.
I am also pointing out that “this war is extra hard to prosecute” is not actually justification for certain actions. The difficulty of fighting the war falls on the people fighting the war, including the difficulty of protecting civilians during that war. What else would any standards or laws mean if that weren’t the case? The whole premise of these standards is to set a ceiling on what sort of awful conditions can be allowed during warfare.
> The onus of protecting journalists (and medical workers) falls on the military regardless of how difficult the war they’re trying to prosecute is.
No it doesn't?
Just searched the International Criminal Court's English document on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity for 'journalist' and found no results.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Ele...
No it doesn't?
Just searched the International Criminal Court's English document on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity for 'journalist' and found no results.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Ele...
1. Onus doesn’t mean legal requirement. Civilized nations can be, should be, and generally are held to standards far exceeding legal statutes.
2. They DO have an actual legal obligation to protect journalists as well, try searching for “civilian.” If they are targeting journalists (read: civilians) that would obviously be illegal.
2. They DO have an actual legal obligation to protect journalists as well, try searching for “civilian.” If they are targeting journalists (read: civilians) that would obviously be illegal.
> Onus doesn’t mean legal requirement. Civilized nations can be, should be, and generally are held to standards far exceeding legal statutes.
Are they? USA literally has a law on the books that authorizes bombing the netherlands if any of their troops are ever held responsible. Trump pardoned 4 people who masacared civilians (including 2 children) in Iraq
The west doesn't just not go beyond the legal requirements, it flouts the legal requirements when convinent.
Are they? USA literally has a law on the books that authorizes bombing the netherlands if any of their troops are ever held responsible. Trump pardoned 4 people who masacared civilians (including 2 children) in Iraq
The west doesn't just not go beyond the legal requirements, it flouts the legal requirements when convinent.
Proof forbthe claim about the US bombing the Netherlands please.
GP is referring to the "Hague Invasion Act", aka "American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002" passed under GW Bush to authorize a US invasion of The Hague, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution [by the ICC] or rescue them from custody. Originally drafted in response to the Iraq invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Oh dear... I knew the US is one of the few to not recognize the ICC. Never heard of Section 2008. The wording so interesting, especially part covering also people of NATO allies: So theoretically, the US could sent Seal Team Six to extract a member of the Dutch armed forces from The Hague, and attack a NATO member in order to free a citizen from said NATO member. Theoretically, right after Seal Team Six delivered a wanted war criminal to The Hague. Well, I guess at least the strike is easy to position in that case...
Thanks for the throw back to the times of bad George W. policy and laws, almost forgot how bad it was over everything that happened since 2016...
Thanks for the throw back to the times of bad George W. policy and laws, almost forgot how bad it was over everything that happened since 2016...
Failing to protect and targeting is widely different, and it is not in good faith to claim the latter without evidence.
You said "protecting" and protection is far different from "not target".
We have laws for an important reason, without them it's up to any individual to decide for themselves what is just at any given moment. What happens when Israel decides that what's fair and just seems barbaric to you or me? We agree on the rules ahead of time so that we can act accordingly.
If you want war crimes to include "must protect journalists", then I'd suggest your best chance at realizing that goal would be to get the legal codes modified.
You said journalists, not civilians. If you want to talk about civilians now not journalists, that's a new topic.
We have laws for an important reason, without them it's up to any individual to decide for themselves what is just at any given moment. What happens when Israel decides that what's fair and just seems barbaric to you or me? We agree on the rules ahead of time so that we can act accordingly.
If you want war crimes to include "must protect journalists", then I'd suggest your best chance at realizing that goal would be to get the legal codes modified.
You said journalists, not civilians. If you want to talk about civilians now not journalists, that's a new topic.
[deleted]
It's a very imperfect comparison, but at least it's a factual basis. If you have better data, please share it.
agree, this is not war. this is a genocide
mateo1(1)
You also forgot (6) fighting a force that doesn't wear uniforms.
They do... the qassam brigades (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=qassam+brigades&atb=v340-1&iax=ima...)
Besides, not sure Israel would allow them to import the uniforms.
Besides, not sure Israel would allow them to import the uniforms.
They can get them the same way they acquire other things
1) Small size of theater.
2) Asymmetry between forces.
3) No escape route.
2) Asymmetry between forces.
3) No escape route.
Some of the individual incidents do point pretty strongly to deliberate acts. The incidents in Lebanon, for example, rule out a lot of the "proximity" reasoning, as do the methods and types of weapons.
[deleted]
That 69 figure cannot be remotely close to accurate. Millions of civilians died from mass bombing campaigns alone, which certainly killed many journalists working for local outlets in those cities!
Each atomic bomb on its own probably killed more than 69 journalists.
Each atomic bomb on its own probably killed more than 69 journalists.
And for comparison 715 were killed in Syria.
"Of the 715, the Syrian regime was responsible for the killing of 553 journalists, including five children, one woman, five foreign journalists, and 47 journalists who died due to torture, while 24 journalists were killed at the hands of Russian forces."
https://snhr.org/blog/2023/05/03/on-world-press-freedom-day-...
"Of the 715, the Syrian regime was responsible for the killing of 553 journalists, including five children, one woman, five foreign journalists, and 47 journalists who died due to torture, while 24 journalists were killed at the hands of Russian forces."
https://snhr.org/blog/2023/05/03/on-world-press-freedom-day-...
Five children journalists?
You've never seen a high school or a college newspaper?
That war is going on for 12 years and Assad dropped Chemical Weapons on Cities. You shouldn't be in the same order of magnitude as that number.
That's a remarkably small number. It makes me think journalists weren't present in the warzone at all.
Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. An elevated civilian death count, including journalists is to be expected.
However, the numbers being THIS high in this short a time is alarming and tragic.
Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians. An elevated civilian death count, including journalists is to be expected.
However, the numbers being THIS high in this short a time is alarming and tragic.
> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians.
I despise Hamas, but this claim is disingenuous propaganda (by the leaders who make it, not the parent who repeats it):
First, Hamas is 'notorious' for it because it's endlessly repeated by their enemies. That rhetoric doesn't make anything true. (Haven't we had the Internet long enough that people know it well by now?)
Second, Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians (or hide in wilderness); it's just the nature of being that kind of force:
They have personal weapons, mostly. They cannot bring their rifles and RPGs to fight a fully capable modern state military's tanks and planes on an open battlefield - would you? The modern state military would kill them all immediately; it would be pointless. Might as well surrender.
Therefore the assymetric force cannot hold ground, and therefore cannot build bases separate from civilians: If they had identifiable bases, the state military would erradicate them in minutes.
The laws of war require militaries to distinguish soldiers from civilians, but I wonder if that is written by 'symmetric' forces and to their advantage. For assymetric forces, they might as well have bullseyes on their uniforms.
I despise Hamas, but this claim is disingenuous propaganda (by the leaders who make it, not the parent who repeats it):
First, Hamas is 'notorious' for it because it's endlessly repeated by their enemies. That rhetoric doesn't make anything true. (Haven't we had the Internet long enough that people know it well by now?)
Second, Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians (or hide in wilderness); it's just the nature of being that kind of force:
They have personal weapons, mostly. They cannot bring their rifles and RPGs to fight a fully capable modern state military's tanks and planes on an open battlefield - would you? The modern state military would kill them all immediately; it would be pointless. Might as well surrender.
Therefore the assymetric force cannot hold ground, and therefore cannot build bases separate from civilians: If they had identifiable bases, the state military would erradicate them in minutes.
The laws of war require militaries to distinguish soldiers from civilians, but I wonder if that is written by 'symmetric' forces and to their advantage. For assymetric forces, they might as well have bullseyes on their uniforms.
I agree with the premise that Hamas wouldn't be able to fight open battles. But it doesn't make using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves) not their fault. The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone (without getting into details of which part of dead civilians is actually due to being human shields). Of course, that is a sacrifice they are willing to make, but why would you justify it?
> why would you justify it?
Let's not start accusing each other. Drop the BS.
> using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves)
That doesn't mean they are using human shields (and it doesn't mean they are not): Asymetric forces need to blend into the environment - the mountains, the city, etc. In the city, that means blending into the civilian population - it doesn't require any intent to use them as shields (but they still could intend it - they even could intend to cause civilian deaths to drive world opinion).
> The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone
The asymetric force is at least partly to blame for the deaths of civilians, but that doesn't excuse the 'symmetric' force (is there a better term?) from all laws of war and basic human morality. They can still minimize civilian death and still follow rules of proportionality - Israel can't justify nuking the Gaza strip because Hamas is hiding among civilians.
Let's not start accusing each other. Drop the BS.
> using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves)
That doesn't mean they are using human shields (and it doesn't mean they are not): Asymetric forces need to blend into the environment - the mountains, the city, etc. In the city, that means blending into the civilian population - it doesn't require any intent to use them as shields (but they still could intend it - they even could intend to cause civilian deaths to drive world opinion).
> The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone
The asymetric force is at least partly to blame for the deaths of civilians, but that doesn't excuse the 'symmetric' force (is there a better term?) from all laws of war and basic human morality. They can still minimize civilian death and still follow rules of proportionality - Israel can't justify nuking the Gaza strip because Hamas is hiding among civilians.
> That doesn't mean they are using human shields
Being indistinguishable from civilians (blending in) is exactly using civilian as a shield -- the opponent can't identify you and can't kill everyone who looks like you
> They can still minimize civilian death
Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio
Being indistinguishable from civilians (blending in) is exactly using civilian as a shield -- the opponent can't identify you and can't kill everyone who looks like you
> They can still minimize civilian death
Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio
> Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio
Fairly low compared to what? The USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Assad engaged in a civil war? WW2 carpet bombings?
No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here.
And if you also take into account that the IDF basically defines adult male as combatant, so that a lot of the "combatants" killed were actually just adult male civilians, then the picture gets even grimmer.
Not to mention, we keep talking about direct casualties, but Israel is going beyond this - they are not allowing some kinds of critical aid into Gaza at all (water treatment pills are forbidden, for one egregious example), and they are generally only allowing a trickle of aid of any kind in - in effect starving the population.
Fairly low compared to what? The USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Assad engaged in a civil war? WW2 carpet bombings?
No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here.
And if you also take into account that the IDF basically defines adult male as combatant, so that a lot of the "combatants" killed were actually just adult male civilians, then the picture gets even grimmer.
Not to mention, we keep talking about direct casualties, but Israel is going beyond this - they are not allowing some kinds of critical aid into Gaza at all (water treatment pills are forbidden, for one egregious example), and they are generally only allowing a trickle of aid of any kind in - in effect starving the population.
> No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here.
Can you give the numbers for comparison? What are acceptable rate in your opinion?
Can you give the numbers for comparison? What are acceptable rate in your opinion?
No rate is acceptable. The debate is not about abiding to any modern war KPIs but rather the intent to minimize civilian casualties. Israel definitely does NOT do that by actively engaging with their current strategy of retaliation and that's already enough to say that, from a human perspective, Israel needs to stop right now and enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area.
I'll rephrase. What rate do you expect in city fights against the enemy mixed with civilians and actively using them as human shields, assuming that the attacking side makes reasonable effort to minimize civilian casualties.
> intent to minimize civilian casualties
Intent is very hard to argue about. Especially when talking about proportionality which is not rigorously defined. Numbers are easier to argue about. It is reasonable to expect that civilian casualty rate will be higher in cases where there is no intent to minimize civilian casualties compared to cases where it is; comparing numbers with conflict in similar conditions where you believe there was such intent is a good starting point
> enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area
Getting rid of terrorist government who promised to repeat 7th of October looks like necessary condition for peace.
> intent to minimize civilian casualties
Intent is very hard to argue about. Especially when talking about proportionality which is not rigorously defined. Numbers are easier to argue about. It is reasonable to expect that civilian casualty rate will be higher in cases where there is no intent to minimize civilian casualties compared to cases where it is; comparing numbers with conflict in similar conditions where you believe there was such intent is a good starting point
> enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area
Getting rid of terrorist government who promised to repeat 7th of October looks like necessary condition for peace.
No, the responsibility is always on who is shooting at civilians. If you can't beat the Hamas in Gaza without shooting civilians, don't shoot, retreat in Israel and focus on protecting Israel.
And that's the breaking point of the whole debate whether Israel's current way of defense is justified. This is literally THE point where most of the general population has split opinions and chooses to condemn or not Israel's actions.
Most people think killing thousands of people to eliminate a terrorist group is a trade-off that should be made which baffles my mind. Where do we live? No human life can be weighted upon anything else.
Most people think killing thousands of people to eliminate a terrorist group is a trade-off that should be made which baffles my mind. Where do we live? No human life can be weighted upon anything else.
Do you imply that if you're attacked by an army mixed with civilians you're just supposed to surrender and not make a single shot? Luckily people who wrote the Geneva and other conventions understood that it made zero sense.
Do you feel the same way about the bombings in Germany and Japan during WW2?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36f2TqaD30
I found this interview pretty thought provoking. I think it is still pro-Israel, but it provides a view of Hamas's strategy that I haven't seen anywhere else.
Basically, what I think Hamas leadership was thinking was to mirror the Hezbollah-Israel conflict from, what, 10 years ago, on a much bigger scale. According to this CIA officer, Hamas had 30,000 soldiers ready to engage in fighting with Israel in an urban environment, and the initial terror attack was trying to sucker the Israelis into rushing in and suffering huge casualties. Not 30,000 soldiers in uniforms and formations to your point, but nonetheless a large force. (This part starts at about 7:30 into the video).
According to the intel officer in the interview, Israel did NOT rush in, and is engaging in effective counterattacks per the Intelligence officer. I understand everyone thinks the press is owned by Israel, but in the failed conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon there was plenty of stories about the Israeli army failing.
I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective.
Hamas is embedded with civilians by default: the Gaza strip is stuffed full of people, it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years.
I found this interview pretty thought provoking. I think it is still pro-Israel, but it provides a view of Hamas's strategy that I haven't seen anywhere else.
Basically, what I think Hamas leadership was thinking was to mirror the Hezbollah-Israel conflict from, what, 10 years ago, on a much bigger scale. According to this CIA officer, Hamas had 30,000 soldiers ready to engage in fighting with Israel in an urban environment, and the initial terror attack was trying to sucker the Israelis into rushing in and suffering huge casualties. Not 30,000 soldiers in uniforms and formations to your point, but nonetheless a large force. (This part starts at about 7:30 into the video).
According to the intel officer in the interview, Israel did NOT rush in, and is engaging in effective counterattacks per the Intelligence officer. I understand everyone thinks the press is owned by Israel, but in the failed conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon there was plenty of stories about the Israeli army failing.
I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective.
Hamas is embedded with civilians by default: the Gaza strip is stuffed full of people, it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years.
> Israel did NOT rush in, and is engaging in effective counterattacks
According to all the experts I read, Israel rushed in without a political outcome planned. All warfare is a tool to achieve political outcomes (unless the outcome was to drive Palestinians out of Gaza or just destroy as many people and buildings as possible). All warfare ends only with a stable political solution; otherwise it continues indefinitely; an example is Afghanistan, where the US failed to achieve a stable political solution and so the war never ended - unfortunately the Taliban have acheived a stable political solution, to some degree.
> I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective.
I agree that the Israeli military has spared itself the hubris and casualities they experienced when they attacked Hezbollah around 20 years ago.
But we still see stories criticizing the Israeli military, and we don't hear desperate stories from Hamas, only from civilians. A military killing civilians isn't accomplishing anything. The question is, are they being effective against Hamas and in establishing some desireable political outcome?
> it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years.
Also from being unable to leave.
According to all the experts I read, Israel rushed in without a political outcome planned. All warfare is a tool to achieve political outcomes (unless the outcome was to drive Palestinians out of Gaza or just destroy as many people and buildings as possible). All warfare ends only with a stable political solution; otherwise it continues indefinitely; an example is Afghanistan, where the US failed to achieve a stable political solution and so the war never ended - unfortunately the Taliban have acheived a stable political solution, to some degree.
> I have not heard those stories. Just desperate stories from the Palestinian side, which tells me the Israelis are being quite effective.
I agree that the Israeli military has spared itself the hubris and casualities they experienced when they attacked Hezbollah around 20 years ago.
But we still see stories criticizing the Israeli military, and we don't hear desperate stories from Hamas, only from civilians. A military killing civilians isn't accomplishing anything. The question is, are they being effective against Hamas and in establishing some desireable political outcome?
> it has very high population density due to the insane 8 children-per-woman population expansion of the Palestinians over the last 60-70 years.
Also from being unable to leave.
The political aim was to cause a LOT of casualties. I'm not going to disagree that this is ugly stuff, but Hamas must have known this was the result. Also I do think the Israelis think they can get a large amount of Hamas leadership.
Gaza is a mafia state under control by Hamas, who likely control all aid coming into the country and certainly the Iranian military funding.
Israel seems to apply a 10x minimum response to any Israeli casualties over the years. This attack is well above the 10x number already.
And remember, the Israelis do not completely surround Gaza. Egypt is complicit in closing the walls of the prison on Gaza, and Egypt I'm told hates the Palestinians more than Israel does. I wonder why this is, Egypt did manage/oversee Gaza for 25 years and I guess said "no thanks".
AFAIK, it's not like the Sinai peninsula is some valuable land, I think Egypt has room to take in Palestinian refugees. They simply refuse to do it. I have not gotten any good reason why they hate them. I guess the Lebanese hate their Palestinian enclave. It is clear the Arab world doesn't care about the Palestinians, and a common brotherhood of Islam doesn't carry weight.
Gaza is a mafia state under control by Hamas, who likely control all aid coming into the country and certainly the Iranian military funding.
Israel seems to apply a 10x minimum response to any Israeli casualties over the years. This attack is well above the 10x number already.
And remember, the Israelis do not completely surround Gaza. Egypt is complicit in closing the walls of the prison on Gaza, and Egypt I'm told hates the Palestinians more than Israel does. I wonder why this is, Egypt did manage/oversee Gaza for 25 years and I guess said "no thanks".
AFAIK, it's not like the Sinai peninsula is some valuable land, I think Egypt has room to take in Palestinian refugees. They simply refuse to do it. I have not gotten any good reason why they hate them. I guess the Lebanese hate their Palestinian enclave. It is clear the Arab world doesn't care about the Palestinians, and a common brotherhood of Islam doesn't carry weight.
Egypt has said that if people are displaced it will put the peace agreement with Israel at risk. It's understandable that they do want 2 million more people to feed and the problems will just move to Sinai as among those 2 millions many will also support Hamas.
Its also not true that Egyptians hate Palestines. In fact I would say its rather unison that they feel great sympathy with the Palestines in the occupied areas, and the boycott of companies that support Israel is strong. McDonald's and Burger Kings are mostly empty and there are Palestine flags at shops, stickers attached to products you buy and people are sad about the situation.
Its also not true that Egyptians hate Palestines. In fact I would say its rather unison that they feel great sympathy with the Palestines in the occupied areas, and the boycott of companies that support Israel is strong. McDonald's and Burger Kings are mostly empty and there are Palestine flags at shops, stickers attached to products you buy and people are sad about the situation.
> I think Egypt has room to take in Palestinian refugees. They simply refuse to do it. I have not gotten any good reason why they hate them. I guess the Lebanese hate their Palestinian enclave. It is clear the Arab world doesn't care about the Palestinians, and a common brotherhood of Islam doesn't carry weight.
This is a bad take. Egypt, and others, refuse to take "Palestinian refugees" because doing so would make them complicit in Israel's ethic cleansing. Why should Palestinians be forced off their own land?
This is a bad take. Egypt, and others, refuse to take "Palestinian refugees" because doing so would make them complicit in Israel's ethic cleansing. Why should Palestinians be forced off their own land?
Palestinian refugees have started civil wars in Jordan and Lebanon. Neither country is keen to repeat that experience and Egypt is not keen to join that list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War
Why on earth would accepting refugees make them complicit? Is Poland complicit in the Russian attack on Ukraine because they allowed the refugees in?
Because once they leave, Israel won't allow them back.
Russia doesn't allow ukrainians back to the occupied territories, they deport the non-complicit ones and the remaining ones are heavily oppressed. That should be the excuse for Poland or the rest of EU to not let the refugees in?
The Arab countries think Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza - drive out the Palestinians. They don't want to help Israel do that.
> Russia doesn't allow ukrainians back to the occupied territories
I don't know that to be true. AFAIK, Russia would like the population there too.
> Russia doesn't allow ukrainians back to the occupied territories
I don't know that to be true. AFAIK, Russia would like the population there too.
If Egypt were to abandon leave with Isreal, they would take in refugees and then allow them to return back across their border to Gaza. Maybe they fear that Isreal would bomb them, but it would be harder to politically justify if Egypt wasn't agressing AND the returning Palestinians were returning to create a peaceful state.
The problem seems to be that Palestinians don't want peace, or are unable to separate themselves from the terrorists government.
The problem seems to be that Palestinians don't want peace, or are unable to separate themselves from the terrorists government.
>> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians.
> this claim is disingenuous propaganda
> Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians
Is the hangup on the word "notorious"? Because you appear to first claim the notion of colocation to be propaganda before explaining why it's also a logistical inevitability.
> this claim is disingenuous propaganda
> Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians
Is the hangup on the word "notorious"? Because you appear to first claim the notion of colocation to be propaganda before explaining why it's also a logistical inevitability.
My point is that the Israeli / pro-Israeli leaders - the ones who understand asymmetric warfare - calling Hamas somehow evil for doing it are spreading disingenuous propaganda. They know very well that an asymmetric force must blend into its surroundings. The Taliban blended into the mountains; Hamas blends into densely populated Gaza.
Hamas does a lot of bad things; they still are 'notorious'; but this thing is just fundamental asymmetric operations, at least generally speaking.
Hamas does a lot of bad things; they still are 'notorious'; but this thing is just fundamental asymmetric operations, at least generally speaking.
> Hamas is notorious for colocating themselves among civilians.
> this claim is disingenuous propaganda
> Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians
Are you listening to yourself here? Pure cognitive dissonance
> this claim is disingenuous propaganda
> Hamas is an assymetric, irregular force, and assymetric forces cannot operate bases or fight open battles anywhere; they all must blend in with civilians
Are you listening to yourself here? Pure cognitive dissonance
I apparently was unclear in my GP comment, because both you and someone else had the same response. See here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39626896
Still, you got it wrong: It wasn't cognitive dissonance, but miscommunication. I'm not trying to score a point; I'm trying to say that jumping to conclusions - despite it's popularity these days - often yields wrongness, and we all are especially prone to it when we are emotionally charged. Curiosity, as a policy and rule, is an effective prophylactic against screwing yourself. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39626896
Still, you got it wrong: It wasn't cognitive dissonance, but miscommunication. I'm not trying to score a point; I'm trying to say that jumping to conclusions - despite it's popularity these days - often yields wrongness, and we all are especially prone to it when we are emotionally charged. Curiosity, as a policy and rule, is an effective prophylactic against screwing yourself. :)
> An elevated civilian death count, including journalists is to be expected.
Is it???
Is it???
Yes? Use your basic reasoning. Hamas fights in civilian clothing, they hide in civilian buildings, they hide in hospitals. They use regular civilians as shields. This is not your average fight; Hamas hates their enemy more than they love their own country.
Maybe another method is needed then?
If you can't tell innocent people from legit targets... rethink the approach?
Here is my reasoning: they hide in civilian clothes, okay let's not shoot civilians. They hide in hospitals, okay let's not bomb hospitals. They use civilian buildings, okay let's not bomb civilian buildings.
They use civilians as shields... let's not shoot the shields.
How is that unreasonable?
If you can't tell innocent people from legit targets... rethink the approach?
Here is my reasoning: they hide in civilian clothes, okay let's not shoot civilians. They hide in hospitals, okay let's not bomb hospitals. They use civilian buildings, okay let's not bomb civilian buildings.
They use civilians as shields... let's not shoot the shields.
How is that unreasonable?
Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't like being killed anymore than Palestinian civilians do.
The thing that usually prevents war is that both sides lose in the end. If only one side is allowed to shoot, why would the side being allowed to shoot ever stop? They would be getting all the benefits of war with none of the drawbacks.
The thing that usually prevents war is that both sides lose in the end. If only one side is allowed to shoot, why would the side being allowed to shoot ever stop? They would be getting all the benefits of war with none of the drawbacks.
> Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back.
The logic doesn't really follow
What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. They're pretty clear as they expose themselves. Israel has 24/7 surveillance it shouldn't be a challenge. Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles?
You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. It seems every street in the city was indiscriminately bombed, every hospital was distroyed, and tens of thousands of civilians were murdered. That's a massacre not a "response".
The logic doesn't really follow
What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites. They're pretty clear as they expose themselves. Israel has 24/7 surveillance it shouldn't be a challenge. Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles?
You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything. It seems every street in the city was indiscriminately bombed, every hospital was distroyed, and tens of thousands of civilians were murdered. That's a massacre not a "response".
> What shots exactly?
I would be referring to all forms of military violence, whether that be guns, rockets or something else.
I also believe if the facility was being used to conduct the war in a significant capacity, e.g. as an ammunition store or as a command and control center then it becomes fair game. Just waiting around for someone to open fire, shoot back only when they are firing, and letting them escape back to their base of operations is not a way to prevent future attacks and puts the defender at an unreasonable disadvantage.
This should still be subject to the doctrine of porportionality and discrimination of course.
> Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles?
I never claimed that. It is especially impossible to show since hamas has not been using missiles in this conflict as far as i know. Perhaps you mean rockets?
My main claim is that if the hospital is being used in any significant capacity to conduct military operations it is reasonable that it could be targeted. Whether any specific instance in this war is justified - i don't know, i don't have the full picture of what happened and i don't know what Israel knew at the time of targeting (intent matters). More to the point, i do not believe that allowing hamas impunity so long as they co-locate their activity near civilians is reasonable.
> You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything.
Only circumstantial based on the civilian death ratio being much lower in this conflict than in other wars where the military bombed indiscriminately.
Generally crimes have an innocent until proven guiltly element. The onus is on evidence is the other way around.
> That's a massacre not a "response".
Whether or not it is ever justified to bomb a hospital is a very different conversation than whether the actions in this specific conflict are justified. For the latter the details matter a lot.
I would be referring to all forms of military violence, whether that be guns, rockets or something else.
I also believe if the facility was being used to conduct the war in a significant capacity, e.g. as an ammunition store or as a command and control center then it becomes fair game. Just waiting around for someone to open fire, shoot back only when they are firing, and letting them escape back to their base of operations is not a way to prevent future attacks and puts the defender at an unreasonable disadvantage.
This should still be subject to the doctrine of porportionality and discrimination of course.
> Can you support your claim by showing evidence that a hospital was used to launch missiles?
I never claimed that. It is especially impossible to show since hamas has not been using missiles in this conflict as far as i know. Perhaps you mean rockets?
My main claim is that if the hospital is being used in any significant capacity to conduct military operations it is reasonable that it could be targeted. Whether any specific instance in this war is justified - i don't know, i don't have the full picture of what happened and i don't know what Israel knew at the time of targeting (intent matters). More to the point, i do not believe that allowing hamas impunity so long as they co-locate their activity near civilians is reasonable.
> You likely don't have evidence that Israel is targeting anything.
Only circumstantial based on the civilian death ratio being much lower in this conflict than in other wars where the military bombed indiscriminately.
Generally crimes have an innocent until proven guiltly element. The onus is on evidence is the other way around.
> That's a massacre not a "response".
Whether or not it is ever justified to bomb a hospital is a very different conversation than whether the actions in this specific conflict are justified. For the latter the details matter a lot.
> What shots exactly? the missiles? Attack the launch sites.
What if those launch sites are top of hospitals or media buildings?
What if those launch sites are top of hospitals or media buildings?
> What if those launch sites are top of hospitals or media buildings?
Is that a claim or just a hypothetical scenario? If it's a claim, please provide evidance that supports hospitals were used to launch rockets.
You know what is not hypothetical? the fact that Israel bombed hospitals, UN schools, churches, mosques, civilian shelters, ambulances, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians: women, children, journalists, UN staff, Red Crescent members. You know what else isn't hypothetical? Israeli minister's call to wipe out a Palestinian village. It's not about a hospital here or there. Just me typing that sentence makes me sick. The fact that we're past the point where a hospital bombing makes a difference in illustrating the crimes committed. Sadly, the attrocities are far greater.
Here are some not hypothetical Massacres and war crimes committed by Israel:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_b...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes
- https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-07-16/ty-article-ma...
Is that a claim or just a hypothetical scenario? If it's a claim, please provide evidance that supports hospitals were used to launch rockets.
You know what is not hypothetical? the fact that Israel bombed hospitals, UN schools, churches, mosques, civilian shelters, ambulances, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians: women, children, journalists, UN staff, Red Crescent members. You know what else isn't hypothetical? Israeli minister's call to wipe out a Palestinian village. It's not about a hospital here or there. Just me typing that sentence makes me sick. The fact that we're past the point where a hospital bombing makes a difference in illustrating the crimes committed. Sadly, the attrocities are far greater.
Here are some not hypothetical Massacres and war crimes committed by Israel:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_committed_b...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes
- https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-07-16/ty-article-ma...
There is plenty of proof of Hamas running their war from schools, hospitals and mosques.
But you will probably not accept them as they usually come from IDF who's on the ground filming these things.
But you will probably not accept them as they usually come from IDF who's on the ground filming these things.
jstarfish(1)
There is no proof that ever happened... And even if, no, you do not bomb hospitals if you do not want to be the baddy.
And when has there been a shred of credible evidence to suggest such a thing?
A lot of evidence, if you choose to believe videos coming out of IDF.
But to take a step back, why would Hamas operating from hospitals, schools and mosques surprise you in any way ? Would you then think anything different of them ? This is asymmetrical warfare. Of course they would use anything they can to create an advantage. Let's not kid ourselves. It's the same as using human shields. That's just how this type of war works.
You work with what you have to survive and gain an advantage
But to take a step back, why would Hamas operating from hospitals, schools and mosques surprise you in any way ? Would you then think anything different of them ? This is asymmetrical warfare. Of course they would use anything they can to create an advantage. Let's not kid ourselves. It's the same as using human shields. That's just how this type of war works.
You work with what you have to survive and gain an advantage
The attack sites are in civilian areas.
Why did 500 Israeli soldiers die in Gaza from your perspective?
> Why did 500 Israeli soldiers die in Gaza from your perspective?
Are saying you committed massacres and bombed hospitals, UN schools, mosques, churches, and ambulances, as some sort of retaliation?
leveling the entire place, displacing a million, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians most of whom were women, children, medical staff and red cross members because...? enlighten me please
Are saying you committed massacres and bombed hospitals, UN schools, mosques, churches, and ambulances, as some sort of retaliation?
leveling the entire place, displacing a million, and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians most of whom were women, children, medical staff and red cross members because...? enlighten me please
When the IRA was periodically attacking UK institutions and killing civilians, did the UK feel entitled to level Belfast and say that the IRA is to blame?
This war in Palestine is much closer to a civil war than to any country-to-country combat, especially since Palestine is simply not an independent country. Since Israel is in control of the Gaza strip for 50+ years (explicit military control till the 2005, still in full control of their borders today), it is on them to treat this as authorities in any country are expected to treat insurgencies on territory they control, not as if they were attacked by a foreign country.
This war in Palestine is much closer to a civil war than to any country-to-country combat, especially since Palestine is simply not an independent country. Since Israel is in control of the Gaza strip for 50+ years (explicit military control till the 2005, still in full control of their borders today), it is on them to treat this as authorities in any country are expected to treat insurgencies on territory they control, not as if they were attacked by a foreign country.
The british controlled the police in northern ireland, Israel does not control the police or other government functions insude Gaza. (As an aside it should be noted that that conflict is orders of magnitude less violent. If the IRA did what Hamas did, i suspect belfast would be leveled) At most israel control their border with gaza (but not egypt's border with gaza) the sea access and air access. A blockade no doubt, but not donestic government functions.
Whether or not gaza is independent is complicated, since they have some features of independence but not others and don't quite squarely fit in either camp. Nonetheless if your suggestion is that israel should have called in whatever their equivalent of a police swat team is - that's impossible because hamas controlled all domestic government functions in gaza. You can't use domestic police techniques on land where you only control the border but not the land itself.
Whether or not gaza is independent is complicated, since they have some features of independence but not others and don't quite squarely fit in either camp. Nonetheless if your suggestion is that israel should have called in whatever their equivalent of a police swat team is - that's impossible because hamas controlled all domestic government functions in gaza. You can't use domestic police techniques on land where you only control the border but not the land itself.
Northern Ireland/UK was not similar to Gaza/Israel at all. The UK was always Northern Ireland's government and controlled all state functions. A better comparison is Mainland China/Taiwan: according to various outsiders, the two are the same country supposedly, but in reality they function as two different states, with entirely separate governments. The main difference between these situations (aside from Taiwan being an island) is that China actually wants Taiwan, whereas Israel really doesn't want Gaza.
> whereas Israel really doesn't want Gaza.
Like, if Israel doesn't want the Gaza strip/west bank, then why hasn't there been a two state solution?
> The UK was always Northern Ireland's government and controlled all state functions.
This is 100% not true, Ulster (the majority of which is in Northern Ireland) was historically the part of Ireland that resisted British/English invasions the most, such that the British brought in lots of scottish settlers to try and make the area more favourable to them.
Honestly though, Northern Ireland is more similar to the West Bank, rather than Gaza due to the settlers.
Like, fundamentally, oppressing the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinian people is never, never going to work, and October 7th will happen again and again until the Israeli people realise this, and make attempts towards peace (which the Palestinians should also do, but right now the Israeli's have a lot more power in the situation).
Like, if Israel doesn't want the Gaza strip/west bank, then why hasn't there been a two state solution?
> The UK was always Northern Ireland's government and controlled all state functions.
This is 100% not true, Ulster (the majority of which is in Northern Ireland) was historically the part of Ireland that resisted British/English invasions the most, such that the British brought in lots of scottish settlers to try and make the area more favourable to them.
Honestly though, Northern Ireland is more similar to the West Bank, rather than Gaza due to the settlers.
Like, fundamentally, oppressing the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinian people is never, never going to work, and October 7th will happen again and again until the Israeli people realise this, and make attempts towards peace (which the Palestinians should also do, but right now the Israeli's have a lot more power in the situation).
> Like, if Israel doesn't want the Gaza strip/west bank, then why hasn't there been a two state solution?
My understanding is support for a 2 state solution is relatively low on both sides. Especially now that things have deteriorated, but even before oct 7 it seemed unlikely.
Even if Israel doesn't want Gaza, they still have an interest in not getting shot at. I don't think they believe that they would be safe from attacks if they left Gaza alone, and based on both history as well as current rhetoric from Palestinian leaders, it doesn't seem like an irrational fear.
> Like, fundamentally, oppressing the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinian people is never, never going to work, and October 7th will happen again and again until the Israeli people realise this, and make attempts towards peace (which the Palestinians should also do, but right now the Israeli's have a lot more power in the situation).
I think a fundamental problem here is historically, israeli overtures towards peace (imperfect as they may have been) have often been met with an increase in violence. Its hard to sell peace to someone when they don't have a lot of reason to believe it will actually result in peace and not increased violence.
My understanding is support for a 2 state solution is relatively low on both sides. Especially now that things have deteriorated, but even before oct 7 it seemed unlikely.
Even if Israel doesn't want Gaza, they still have an interest in not getting shot at. I don't think they believe that they would be safe from attacks if they left Gaza alone, and based on both history as well as current rhetoric from Palestinian leaders, it doesn't seem like an irrational fear.
> Like, fundamentally, oppressing the nationalist aspirations of the Palestinian people is never, never going to work, and October 7th will happen again and again until the Israeli people realise this, and make attempts towards peace (which the Palestinians should also do, but right now the Israeli's have a lot more power in the situation).
I think a fundamental problem here is historically, israeli overtures towards peace (imperfect as they may have been) have often been met with an increase in violence. Its hard to sell peace to someone when they don't have a lot of reason to believe it will actually result in peace and not increased violence.
How about some history, let's go back to 1993 and the Clinton presidency. There was a nice little deal called the Oslo Accords. Not the best deal for the Palestinians, but it created a lasting peace and established a Palestinian state.
Israel has never lived up to their side of the agreement. How do you expect anyone to trust them at this point. So yes, confidence is low and will continue to be low as long as Israel is not beholden to international law and continues to be protected by the USA.
There are many murmurs that Netanyahu orchestrated the death of the accords starting with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/assassination-...
Israel has never lived up to their side of the agreement. How do you expect anyone to trust them at this point. So yes, confidence is low and will continue to be low as long as Israel is not beholden to international law and continues to be protected by the USA.
There are many murmurs that Netanyahu orchestrated the death of the accords starting with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/assassination-...
Both sides claim the other did not live up to their end of the deal, and i think both have a point to a certain extent. However it does not exactly give strong evidence of peace deals actually leading to peace.
> My understanding is support for a 2 state solution is relatively low on both sides. Especially now that things have deteriorated, but even before oct 7 it seemed unlikely.
I find that pretty hard to believe (particularly from the Palestinian side). I agree that Israel's government doesn't want this (Netanyahu has been against since forever), but the options are occupation and the consequent destruction of Israel as a liberal democratic state, or a two state solution. Fundamentally, nothing else will work.
> Even if Israel doesn't want Gaza, they still have an interest in not getting shot at. I don't think they believe that they would be safe from attacks if they left Gaza alone, and based on both history as well as current rhetoric from Palestinian leaders, it doesn't seem like an irrational fear.
I completely understand the fears that many Israelis have, but fundamentally if they stopped settling the west bank and moved towards actually working towards a two state solution, there would be a lot less violence.
> I think a fundamental problem here is historically, israeli overtures towards peace (imperfect as they may have been) have often been met with an increase in violence. Its hard to sell peace to someone when they don't have a lot of reason to believe it will actually result in peace and not increased violence.
Can you give me some examples here? I'm open to being convinced, but I haven't noted much of this over the twenty years I've been following this conflict.
I find that pretty hard to believe (particularly from the Palestinian side). I agree that Israel's government doesn't want this (Netanyahu has been against since forever), but the options are occupation and the consequent destruction of Israel as a liberal democratic state, or a two state solution. Fundamentally, nothing else will work.
> Even if Israel doesn't want Gaza, they still have an interest in not getting shot at. I don't think they believe that they would be safe from attacks if they left Gaza alone, and based on both history as well as current rhetoric from Palestinian leaders, it doesn't seem like an irrational fear.
I completely understand the fears that many Israelis have, but fundamentally if they stopped settling the west bank and moved towards actually working towards a two state solution, there would be a lot less violence.
> I think a fundamental problem here is historically, israeli overtures towards peace (imperfect as they may have been) have often been met with an increase in violence. Its hard to sell peace to someone when they don't have a lot of reason to believe it will actually result in peace and not increased violence.
Can you give me some examples here? I'm open to being convinced, but I haven't noted much of this over the twenty years I've been following this conflict.
First google result says palestinian support for a two state solution is at about 24% https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-... a poll of israelis show support is low among them too but higher than among Palestinians https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-...
> I completely understand the fears that many Israelis have, but fundamentally if they stopped settling the west bank and moved towards actually working towards a two state solution, there would be a lot less violence.
To be clear, i 100% agree with this, for moral reasons if nothing else. However i imagine its not lost on israelis that the violence seems to be coming from Gaza not the west bank.
> Can you give me some examples here? I'm open to being convinced, but I haven't noted much of this over the twenty years I've been following this conflict.
I was referring to the second intifada, as well as the rise of hamas and their general kill israel rhetoric. Which both came after Oslo (or arguably its semi-failure) To be clear, i am aware that both of these have complex causes, and perhaps my simplification is unfair, but i also don't think that matters to the optics of the situation.
> I completely understand the fears that many Israelis have, but fundamentally if they stopped settling the west bank and moved towards actually working towards a two state solution, there would be a lot less violence.
To be clear, i 100% agree with this, for moral reasons if nothing else. However i imagine its not lost on israelis that the violence seems to be coming from Gaza not the west bank.
> Can you give me some examples here? I'm open to being convinced, but I haven't noted much of this over the twenty years I've been following this conflict.
I was referring to the second intifada, as well as the rise of hamas and their general kill israel rhetoric. Which both came after Oslo (or arguably its semi-failure) To be clear, i am aware that both of these have complex causes, and perhaps my simplification is unfair, but i also don't think that matters to the optics of the situation.
> Like, if Israel doesn't want the Gaza strip/west bank, then why hasn't there been a two state solution?
Because Hamas wants Israel destroyed, and a state actor doing that is a much bigger problem for Israel than a non-state actor.
Because Hamas wants Israel destroyed, and a state actor doing that is a much bigger problem for Israel than a non-state actor.
> Because Hamas wants Israel destroyed, and a state actor doing that is a much bigger problem for Israel than a non-state actor.
Hamas is fundamentally a response to the co-option of the PA by (perceived) western/israeli governments. It's rather like the provisional IRA versus the constitutional nationalists in Ireland.
If people see that only violence has any impact, there will be more violence. The events post October 7th (i.e. what's happened in Gaza) have basically created the next Hamas, even in the vanishingly unlikely case that the IDF can wipe them out now.
Hamas is fundamentally a response to the co-option of the PA by (perceived) western/israeli governments. It's rather like the provisional IRA versus the constitutional nationalists in Ireland.
If people see that only violence has any impact, there will be more violence. The events post October 7th (i.e. what's happened in Gaza) have basically created the next Hamas, even in the vanishingly unlikely case that the IDF can wipe them out now.
You have gotten it backwards.
Israel has had a long-standing policy of propping up Hamas in order to divide Palestinians and thwart the creation of a Palestinian state. Here's an actual quote from Netanyahu on this from 2019 :
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjam...
Israel has had a long-standing policy of propping up Hamas in order to divide Palestinians and thwart the creation of a Palestinian state. Here's an actual quote from Netanyahu on this from 2019 :
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjam...
To the contrary, they want Gaza for the 500 billion dollar natural gas field which is in it's international waters - this would turn Palestine into another Qatar.
- https://iacenter.org/2023/11/15/behind-israels-end-game-for-...
- https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/israel-gives-nod-gaz...
- https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/21/palestines-forg...
Follow the money
- https://iacenter.org/2023/11/15/behind-israels-end-game-for-...
- https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/israel-gives-nod-gaz...
- https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/21/palestines-forg...
Follow the money
> Essentially that implies Israel will get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back. I suspect most Israelis would find that unreasonable. Israeli civilians don't like being killed anymore than Palestinian civilians do.
We are talking about Gaza. The only Israelis being shot there are Israeli militari attacking the Gaza strip.
If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass.
If you are talking missiles, Israel has air defense systems.
We are talking about Gaza. The only Israelis being shot there are Israeli militari attacking the Gaza strip.
If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass.
If you are talking missiles, Israel has air defense systems.
> We are talking about Gaza. The only Israelis being shot there are Israeli militari attacking the Gaza strip.
What exactly do you think happened on oct 7?
> If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass.
They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation.
What exactly do you think happened on oct 7?
> If you are talking missiles, well Israel should abandon the colonies and create a no man's land where no civilian, be it Israeli or Palestinian, can go, and only shoot those that trespass.
They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation.
> They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation.
No, they didn't "do that to Gaza" - Israel has kept Gaza under a brutal blockade, by air, land and sea. Israel kept the place like an open air prison, and had it surrounded by military outposts and remotely operated guns. Hundreds of civilians were shot in 2023 prior to Oct 7th, including peaceful protesters.
No, they didn't "do that to Gaza" - Israel has kept Gaza under a brutal blockade, by air, land and sea. Israel kept the place like an open air prison, and had it surrounded by military outposts and remotely operated guns. Hundreds of civilians were shot in 2023 prior to Oct 7th, including peaceful protesters.
The person i was responding to didn't say israel should stop the blockade. They said israel should dismantle their colonies. Which they did in Gaza in 2005. There are no colonies currently in gaza.
It should also be noted that the blockade happened in 2007, so there was a 2 year period there. In any case, the israeli withdrawl is one of the key historical facts that lead to the current geopolitical context.
It should also be noted that the blockade happened in 2007, so there was a 2 year period there. In any case, the israeli withdrawl is one of the key historical facts that lead to the current geopolitical context.
> They said israel should dismantle their colonies
Sure, but the implication was that Gazans were then "free" with self-determination; I wanted to point out that the situation is not so clear-cut.
Sure, but the implication was that Gazans were then "free" with self-determination; I wanted to point out that the situation is not so clear-cut.
> They did do that to Gaza in 2005. That is how we arrived at the current situation.
It can't work if you don't let palestinians space to live.
It can't work if you don't let palestinians space to live.
> Maybe another method is needed then?
What would be useful is a historic example where another approach has worked. I don't approve of Israel's methods. I'd prefer an egalitarian solution. But, I'm all out of ideas. Find me an instance of 2 co-habiting or neighboring groups that hate each other, have huge disputes and ended up in relative peace.
I can give you my recent examples of previous instances that are now mostly peaceful, and all of them violate the geneva convention or UN human rights declaration.
Xinjiang = permament open air prison and extreme brain washing
Srilanka LTTE = violent genocide of all suspected participants and their innocent family. 100k civilians killed
Bosnia - Sijekovac killings = violent genocide of thousands of innocent Bosnians in the Bosnian war
Kosovo - thousands of killings, massive population displacement (1+ million) & US military intervention
So what is it ? Do we want the US to intervene and guarantee safety to Israel ? Do we want real open air prisons and complete cultural eradication ? Do we want population displacement of every Gazan to a 3rd location ? Hopefully we are not in support of genocide ?
Well, so what is 'another method' ?
Every single instance of haphazardly drawn post-WW2 line, has led to some kind of insurgency, war, genocide or forced population displacement. Peaceful borders are drawn in the blood of ancestors. The west is simply fortunate enough to have concluded it's killing mid-way through the 20th century. Israel is currently going through one such process. It is especially rich to see the criticism come from western nations who first created the problem. They encouraged the conditions that led to Oct 2023: 2005 withdrawl of Israel and rise of Hamas, and its unilateral control on aid. They refuse to propose any middle ground solution. It's ridiculous.
What would be useful is a historic example where another approach has worked. I don't approve of Israel's methods. I'd prefer an egalitarian solution. But, I'm all out of ideas. Find me an instance of 2 co-habiting or neighboring groups that hate each other, have huge disputes and ended up in relative peace.
I can give you my recent examples of previous instances that are now mostly peaceful, and all of them violate the geneva convention or UN human rights declaration.
Xinjiang = permament open air prison and extreme brain washing
Srilanka LTTE = violent genocide of all suspected participants and their innocent family. 100k civilians killed
Bosnia - Sijekovac killings = violent genocide of thousands of innocent Bosnians in the Bosnian war
Kosovo - thousands of killings, massive population displacement (1+ million) & US military intervention
So what is it ? Do we want the US to intervene and guarantee safety to Israel ? Do we want real open air prisons and complete cultural eradication ? Do we want population displacement of every Gazan to a 3rd location ? Hopefully we are not in support of genocide ?
Well, so what is 'another method' ?
Every single instance of haphazardly drawn post-WW2 line, has led to some kind of insurgency, war, genocide or forced population displacement. Peaceful borders are drawn in the blood of ancestors. The west is simply fortunate enough to have concluded it's killing mid-way through the 20th century. Israel is currently going through one such process. It is especially rich to see the criticism come from western nations who first created the problem. They encouraged the conditions that led to Oct 2023: 2005 withdrawl of Israel and rise of Hamas, and its unilateral control on aid. They refuse to propose any middle ground solution. It's ridiculous.
We actually have very clear examples from history of how to turn an enemy into a friend: the Marshall plan and the similar levels of aid that the USA poured into post-nazi Germany, post-fascist Italy, post-imperial Japan. That turned War-torn bitter enemies into some of the staunchest US allies today.
Given Israel's position of power, they can and should be doing this. However, Israeli politicians just don't want this. Netanyahu has publicly boasted numerous times that he has personally been actively fighting to prevent a two-state solution. A one-state solution is unthinkable to even the moderates in Israel (the Supreme Court has repeatedly iterated that the government MUST protect both the Jewish and the Democratic character of Israel, so integrating the populations of Gaza and the West Bank as full Israeli citizens like this would be unconstitutional, but integrating them as second class citizens would also be unconstitutional).
So what is Israel's solution? Destroying Hamas is a pipe dream - the famine, death, and destruction they are pereptrating in Gaza today will, inevitably, create a new wave of terrorism, whether it's called "Hamas" or something else, as it always has throughout all of history.
The only real solution is massive economic investments in Gaza and the West Bank, and relying on police-like peacekeeping to prevent attacks as much as possible. This is the obvious long-term solution, anything else will worsen, not improve, Israel's security.
Given Israel's position of power, they can and should be doing this. However, Israeli politicians just don't want this. Netanyahu has publicly boasted numerous times that he has personally been actively fighting to prevent a two-state solution. A one-state solution is unthinkable to even the moderates in Israel (the Supreme Court has repeatedly iterated that the government MUST protect both the Jewish and the Democratic character of Israel, so integrating the populations of Gaza and the West Bank as full Israeli citizens like this would be unconstitutional, but integrating them as second class citizens would also be unconstitutional).
So what is Israel's solution? Destroying Hamas is a pipe dream - the famine, death, and destruction they are pereptrating in Gaza today will, inevitably, create a new wave of terrorism, whether it's called "Hamas" or something else, as it always has throughout all of history.
The only real solution is massive economic investments in Gaza and the West Bank, and relying on police-like peacekeeping to prevent attacks as much as possible. This is the obvious long-term solution, anything else will worsen, not improve, Israel's security.
> Destroying Hamas is a pipe dream - the famine, death, and destruction they are pereptrating in Gaza today will, inevitably, create a new wave of terrorism, whether it's called "Hamas" or something else, as it always has throughout all of history.
I've seen it argued that is exactly what Israel want - to whip up a new frenzy of Islamophobia, both encouraging immigration to Israel and also making it easier to attack their neighbours and advance their plan for "Greater Israel".
I thought it sounded unlikely at first, but with everything going on in the UK right now... I'm inclined to believe it.
I've seen it argued that is exactly what Israel want - to whip up a new frenzy of Islamophobia, both encouraging immigration to Israel and also making it easier to attack their neighbours and advance their plan for "Greater Israel".
I thought it sounded unlikely at first, but with everything going on in the UK right now... I'm inclined to believe it.
>We actually have very clear examples from history of how to turn an enemy into a friend: the Marshall plan
Japan, Germany, and Italy's people didn't practice a religion that required them to hate Americans. For Germany and Italy in particular, they followed (basically) the same religion as most Americans. Japan never really had much religion. And none of these WWII powers were theocratic states in any way, or governed by religious extremists.
The idea that Israel and Gaza are somehow going to become staunch allies seems like a pipe dream.
However, if you really do want to follow the WWII example, you're totally forgetting that the Allies completely flattened major cities and killed millions of civilians, intentionally, before finally getting unconditional surrenders from their enemies. Basically, one side had to hit rock-bottom before it could be built up again into an ally by the victor. Being so completely devastated and defeated in a major war caused the losing powers to collectively change, on a societal level, the way they viewed the world.
Japan, Germany, and Italy's people didn't practice a religion that required them to hate Americans. For Germany and Italy in particular, they followed (basically) the same religion as most Americans. Japan never really had much religion. And none of these WWII powers were theocratic states in any way, or governed by religious extremists.
The idea that Israel and Gaza are somehow going to become staunch allies seems like a pipe dream.
However, if you really do want to follow the WWII example, you're totally forgetting that the Allies completely flattened major cities and killed millions of civilians, intentionally, before finally getting unconditional surrenders from their enemies. Basically, one side had to hit rock-bottom before it could be built up again into an ally by the victor. Being so completely devastated and defeated in a major war caused the losing powers to collectively change, on a societal level, the way they viewed the world.
You do know that the vast majority of Muslim people live in countries that don't have any higher hatred of the USA than the average person, right? The largest Muslim country is Indonesia, followed by Bangladesh and Pakistan. So religion has nothing to do with this.
The fact that Palestine is ruled by extremists is not a happenstance, it is a direct consequence of how the Palestinian people have been treated after the war. They lived under full military occupation until 2005, for close to 30 years. Is it any wonder that they became extremists?
What we are seeing are the exact same consequences of the Versailles agreement after WW1, with Germany becoming more and more radicalized because of the extreme economic conditions until a deranged lunatic came to power. This didn't repeat after WW2 exactly because, instead of occupying the defeated countries or imposing harsh economic penalties (both of which Israel did to Palestine after the war) we helped them build up.
Were there terrorists and radicalized groups in the Palestinian territories immediately after the war as well? Of course. But they were fringe groups, and were to be expected when so many had been displaced from their homes. They would have quieted down if the next 30 years had been full of economic growth, instead of military occupation and deprivation.
The fact that Palestine is ruled by extremists is not a happenstance, it is a direct consequence of how the Palestinian people have been treated after the war. They lived under full military occupation until 2005, for close to 30 years. Is it any wonder that they became extremists?
What we are seeing are the exact same consequences of the Versailles agreement after WW1, with Germany becoming more and more radicalized because of the extreme economic conditions until a deranged lunatic came to power. This didn't repeat after WW2 exactly because, instead of occupying the defeated countries or imposing harsh economic penalties (both of which Israel did to Palestine after the war) we helped them build up.
Were there terrorists and radicalized groups in the Palestinian territories immediately after the war as well? Of course. But they were fringe groups, and were to be expected when so many had been displaced from their homes. They would have quieted down if the next 30 years had been full of economic growth, instead of military occupation and deprivation.
>What we are seeing are the exact same consequences of the Versailles agreement after WW1, with Germany becoming more and more radicalized because of the extreme economic conditions until a deranged lunatic came to power. This didn't repeat after WW2 exactly because, instead of occupying the defeated countries or imposing harsh economic penalties (both of which Israel did to Palestine after the war) we helped them build up.
You're missing some stuff. In Germany, the Allies didn't just build them up economically and hope for the best, they carried out a strong de-Nazification campaign to basically brainwash everyone out of the Nazi ideology that they had brainwashed themselves into. It wasn't like the Germans suddenly all realized they were wrong and horrible and their racist ideology was bad. This is the same reason the US tried similar de-Baathification after defeating Iraq.
For something similar to happen in Gaza, Israel needs to completely and utterly defeat the ruling government there, then use military forces to occupy the land and create a military government for a while until a civilian government, completely controlled by Israel, can be set up. Meanwhile, they have to control education and teach the Gazans, forcefully (i.e., no free-speech allowed), that their ideology is wrong (along with their interpretation of their Islamic religion). Anyone who publicly supports the atrocities of Hamas get to go to prison. (In Germany, denying the Holocaust or supporting the Nazi government is a criminal offense, remember.)
Is this really what you want?
>You do know that the vast majority of Muslim people live in countries that don't have any higher hatred of the USA than the average person, right? The largest Muslim country is ... So religion has nothing to do with this.
First, this isn't about the USA, it's about Israel vs. Gaza. The people in Gaza hate Israel.
Secondly, talking about Indonesia is like equating Catholics and Protestants, when they've historically hated each other and had wars. They might all be "Muslims" to you, but they're not the same and their beliefs aren't the same. Looking at the last century, it's pretty obvious that Middle Eastern Muslims are not happy about having a Jewish-dominated country in their midst. They aren't even happy about having different kinds of Muslims living around them, which is why they've had so many Sunni vs Shia wars, or ISIS who hated everyone who wasn't as ridiculously extremist as themselves.
You're missing some stuff. In Germany, the Allies didn't just build them up economically and hope for the best, they carried out a strong de-Nazification campaign to basically brainwash everyone out of the Nazi ideology that they had brainwashed themselves into. It wasn't like the Germans suddenly all realized they were wrong and horrible and their racist ideology was bad. This is the same reason the US tried similar de-Baathification after defeating Iraq.
For something similar to happen in Gaza, Israel needs to completely and utterly defeat the ruling government there, then use military forces to occupy the land and create a military government for a while until a civilian government, completely controlled by Israel, can be set up. Meanwhile, they have to control education and teach the Gazans, forcefully (i.e., no free-speech allowed), that their ideology is wrong (along with their interpretation of their Islamic religion). Anyone who publicly supports the atrocities of Hamas get to go to prison. (In Germany, denying the Holocaust or supporting the Nazi government is a criminal offense, remember.)
Is this really what you want?
>You do know that the vast majority of Muslim people live in countries that don't have any higher hatred of the USA than the average person, right? The largest Muslim country is ... So religion has nothing to do with this.
First, this isn't about the USA, it's about Israel vs. Gaza. The people in Gaza hate Israel.
Secondly, talking about Indonesia is like equating Catholics and Protestants, when they've historically hated each other and had wars. They might all be "Muslims" to you, but they're not the same and their beliefs aren't the same. Looking at the last century, it's pretty obvious that Middle Eastern Muslims are not happy about having a Jewish-dominated country in their midst. They aren't even happy about having different kinds of Muslims living around them, which is why they've had so many Sunni vs Shia wars, or ISIS who hated everyone who wasn't as ridiculously extremist as themselves.
> Japan, Germany, and Italy's people didn't practice a religion that required them to hate Americans.
I'm not sure if you're equating Islam with hatred of the USA, or if you mean because so many Israelis believe Palestinians are "amalek", no better than bugs?
> Allies completely flattened major cities and killed millions of civilians, intentionally
And out of these horrors came international agreement on what actions are allowed during wartime, with the aim of ensuring such atrocities weren't repeated. Israel does not respect international law, and should be sanctioned.
I'm not sure if you're equating Islam with hatred of the USA, or if you mean because so many Israelis believe Palestinians are "amalek", no better than bugs?
> Allies completely flattened major cities and killed millions of civilians, intentionally
And out of these horrors came international agreement on what actions are allowed during wartime, with the aim of ensuring such atrocities weren't repeated. Israel does not respect international law, and should be sanctioned.
>I'm not sure if you're equating Islam with hatred of the USA
I don't know where people are getting this. I'm equating Islam and Judaism with hatred of each other. It's what religions do. We have two effective countries, each one basically a theocracy (less so on the Israeli side, but the fact is, it was founded to be a Jewish state), and their religions are incompatible.
>And out of these horrors came international agreement on what actions are allowed during wartime, with the aim of ensuring such atrocities weren't repeated.
Sure, and the nation-building successes that came after those horrors have never been repeated.
I don't know where people are getting this. I'm equating Islam and Judaism with hatred of each other. It's what religions do. We have two effective countries, each one basically a theocracy (less so on the Israeli side, but the fact is, it was founded to be a Jewish state), and their religions are incompatible.
>And out of these horrors came international agreement on what actions are allowed during wartime, with the aim of ensuring such atrocities weren't repeated.
Sure, and the nation-building successes that came after those horrors have never been repeated.
> Japan, Germany, and Italy's people didn't practice a religion that required them to hate Americans.
I mean historically Jews were treated much better by Islam than they were by Christians, so I'm not sure that argument holds up.
Now, given that Israel has been occupying the land of the Palestinians for over fifty years now, there's definitely gonna be a lot of anger there. But flattening Gaza is definitely not gonna help with that.
I mean historically Jews were treated much better by Islam than they were by Christians, so I'm not sure that argument holds up.
Now, given that Israel has been occupying the land of the Palestinians for over fifty years now, there's definitely gonna be a lot of anger there. But flattening Gaza is definitely not gonna help with that.
Germany, Italy and Japan unconditionally surrendered. The Marshall Plan didn't create peace, it rebuilt societies once peace had been established.
Do we imagine that Germany would have agreed to peace in 1944 or 1939 if only the Allies had given enough aid?
Do we imagine that Germany would have agreed to peace in 1944 or 1939 if only the Allies had given enough aid?
Palestine has been under de facto Israeli control for more than 50 years. Israel won this war a long, long time ago.
And instead of helping to build a place for Palestinians to live, they kept them under direct military occupation until 2005, then under blockade plus air raids (in retaliation for Palestinian attacks, but usually ending up with a 10:1 ratio of dead Palestinians for each killed Israeli citizen).
What they're seeing now is exactly what the French and British discovered after WW1: if you try to humiliate and subjugate a whole country, even after you have just decisively won a war against them, you'll only radicalize them, ending in a bigger war (thankfully, Palestine doesn't have the resources to become Nazi Germany even if they want to).
The only solutions to have long lasting peace are either (a) investment and openness, or (b) complete annihilation or something close to it. I'm advocating as much as I can for (a).
And instead of helping to build a place for Palestinians to live, they kept them under direct military occupation until 2005, then under blockade plus air raids (in retaliation for Palestinian attacks, but usually ending up with a 10:1 ratio of dead Palestinians for each killed Israeli citizen).
What they're seeing now is exactly what the French and British discovered after WW1: if you try to humiliate and subjugate a whole country, even after you have just decisively won a war against them, you'll only radicalize them, ending in a bigger war (thankfully, Palestine doesn't have the resources to become Nazi Germany even if they want to).
The only solutions to have long lasting peace are either (a) investment and openness, or (b) complete annihilation or something close to it. I'm advocating as much as I can for (a).
> And instead of helping to build a place for Palestinians to live, they kept them under direct military occupation until 2005, then under blockade plus air raids (in retaliation for Palestinian attacks, but usually ending up with a 10:1 ratio of dead Palestinians for each killed Israeli citizen).
Gaza got billions of aid since 2005. Water pipes were built, material was delivered. What happened with it? They built one of the biggest underground tunnel systems in the world (as we can see right now), they dug out the pipes to use them for rockets, same with the material. And all the time they attacked Israel and then said "we cannot live in peace, Israel blockades us", leaving the 'after we attacked them again and again' part out.
Palestinians had all the help in the world to live a peaceful life in the Gaza strip with more freedoms over time if they can show that that freedoms don't lead to more dead Israelis. Each time they chose violence instead.
Gaza got billions of aid since 2005. Water pipes were built, material was delivered. What happened with it? They built one of the biggest underground tunnel systems in the world (as we can see right now), they dug out the pipes to use them for rockets, same with the material. And all the time they attacked Israel and then said "we cannot live in peace, Israel blockades us", leaving the 'after we attacked them again and again' part out.
Palestinians had all the help in the world to live a peaceful life in the Gaza strip with more freedoms over time if they can show that that freedoms don't lead to more dead Israelis. Each time they chose violence instead.
Oh, wow, billions! They even got water!
Seriously speaking, what they got is subsistence level help, essentially. The Marshall plan was about building up businesses, industry, banks - everything. Not some token support to just about prevent them from dying.
And, with the 30 years of military occupation and the 20 years of blockade, no real commerce could be made, so Gaza was kept entirely dependent on foreign aid.
Seriously speaking, what they got is subsistence level help, essentially. The Marshall plan was about building up businesses, industry, banks - everything. Not some token support to just about prevent them from dying.
And, with the 30 years of military occupation and the 20 years of blockade, no real commerce could be made, so Gaza was kept entirely dependent on foreign aid.
For the record, Germany just finished paying off war reparations from WWII. 92 years later.
-https://www.history.com/news/germany-world-war-i-debt-treaty...
-https://www.history.com/news/germany-world-war-i-debt-treaty...
> What would be useful is a historic example where another approach has worked. I don't approve of Israel's methods. I'd prefer an egalitarian solution. But, I'm all out of ideas. Find me an instance of 2 co-habiting or neighboring groups that hate each other, have huge disputes and ended up in relative peace.
Northern Ireland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process
They still hate one another, but are mostly at peace.
Northern Ireland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process
They still hate one another, but are mostly at peace.
> What would be useful is a historic example where another approach has worked.
Sticking to quite recent examples: South Africa, Basque Country, Ireland.
Sticking to quite recent examples: South Africa, Basque Country, Ireland.
The violence hasn’t really stopped in any of those places. Some participants have changed though.
Huh? The violence in Northern Ireland has 100% stopped.
There’s still dissident republican and loyalist groups getting up to bullshit criminality and committing attacks on the regular.
The PIRA may have disbanded, but there are still active splinter groups.
The PIRA may have disbanded, but there are still active splinter groups.
I mean, they're basically gangs now, rather than terrorists. I remember growing up in the 80s/90s in the south and every single weekend there was either bombings or killings. That's almost entirely ended now.
It’s not as bad as it was, and yes they are mostly drugs gangs now, but it’s still unacceptable levels of useless violence.
>> Well, so what is 'another method' ?
Another method would be the IDF accepting their responsibility for failing to protect the kibbutzim on 7 October, and making damn sure that this doesn't happen again on their watch. Stop killing the Arabs and start defending the jews.
And I don't mean that they should make sure there's no more Palestinians left to attack them, because that is a horror that the world must never see again (but still sees all too often).
Another method would be the IDF accepting their responsibility for failing to protect the kibbutzim on 7 October, and making damn sure that this doesn't happen again on their watch. Stop killing the Arabs and start defending the jews.
And I don't mean that they should make sure there's no more Palestinians left to attack them, because that is a horror that the world must never see again (but still sees all too often).
So basically let them attack Israel as much as they want, and Israel is only allowed to defend?
That's like having a sibling that's allowed to punch, prod, and poke you as much as they want. If you don't hit back your life will be hell.
That's like having a sibling that's allowed to punch, prod, and poke you as much as they want. If you don't hit back your life will be hell.
Note that what I'm describing is essentially the status quo before 7 October, including the periodic "mowings of the lawn" by Israel to keep Gaza uprisings in check.
Alternatively of course, Israel could choose to make peace. And that's an option that is available only to Israel, who is the occupying power, and the overwhelmingly more militarily powerful party, not to the Palestinians who can only keep growing resistance groups as long as they are occupied. Israel can choose to end the atrocities and the bloodshed tomorrow. But I guess that would be too much loss of face for all the belligerent fascist assholes in its government.
Alternatively of course, Israel could choose to make peace. And that's an option that is available only to Israel, who is the occupying power, and the overwhelmingly more militarily powerful party, not to the Palestinians who can only keep growing resistance groups as long as they are occupied. Israel can choose to end the atrocities and the bloodshed tomorrow. But I guess that would be too much loss of face for all the belligerent fascist assholes in its government.
Serious question: Do you think that Isreal would cease to be attacked by Palestinians tomorrow if they stopped military operations, left Palestine, lifted all blockades, and only operated a no-cross policy for the shared border?
My hypothesis is that without a blockade, external munitions would be shipped in and used to try and obliterate Isreal.
I see no evidence of a stop-and-immediate-peace outcome.
My hypothesis is that without a blockade, external munitions would be shipped in and used to try and obliterate Isreal.
I see no evidence of a stop-and-immediate-peace outcome.
You are probably right. I think it will certainly take a very long time for the feelings of hatred and vengeance to subside, on both sides, after all the horror, death and destruction. But I think that the majority of the Palestinians, even many who have lost people in all the wars in Gaza in the last 17 years, would prefer peace to war. They have gained nothing from war and have lost way too much. Why wouldn't they want it to stop, at last?
Within Hamas itself there are moderates, that were sidelined in 2007, after the attempted coup by a US-armed Fatah faction that led to Hamas taking control of Gaza. These moderates have been severely weakened in the wars that followed, but Hamas has made a few entreaties for peace with Israel (all rebuffed) so they are still there and still have some influence. If Israel shows that it is serious about peace, these moderates will be empowered and will find support in the population, I believe.
I believe peace is possible. I'm Greek. After the Catastrophe of 1922 (you'll find information about it on Wikipedia), we have had 102 years of peace with the Turkish, our blood enemies for many centuries. A peace troubled, at times, but a peace nonetheless, that has endured. Like the Jewish, we too have lost the land where our ancestors lived for thousands of years, lost our greatest city, lost our greatest temple that was turned into a mosque by the Turkish. If we and the Turkish can make it work, the Israelis and the Palestinians can make it work. Not immediately, like you suggest. But someone has to make the first step. The Palestinians can't, because they're the weakest side and they cannot negotiate from a position of power. The Israelis must make the first move. And endure through any turbulence that follows.
>> My hypothesis is that without a blockade, external munitions would be shipped in and used to try and obliterate Isreal.
That doesn't have to happen but I think 7 October was the worst Hamas will ever be able to do. It's not like they'll suddenly grow a modern army with F-16s and armor. The IDF will always be able to deal with whatever Hamas manage to throw at them, there is no question about that in my mind.
Within Hamas itself there are moderates, that were sidelined in 2007, after the attempted coup by a US-armed Fatah faction that led to Hamas taking control of Gaza. These moderates have been severely weakened in the wars that followed, but Hamas has made a few entreaties for peace with Israel (all rebuffed) so they are still there and still have some influence. If Israel shows that it is serious about peace, these moderates will be empowered and will find support in the population, I believe.
I believe peace is possible. I'm Greek. After the Catastrophe of 1922 (you'll find information about it on Wikipedia), we have had 102 years of peace with the Turkish, our blood enemies for many centuries. A peace troubled, at times, but a peace nonetheless, that has endured. Like the Jewish, we too have lost the land where our ancestors lived for thousands of years, lost our greatest city, lost our greatest temple that was turned into a mosque by the Turkish. If we and the Turkish can make it work, the Israelis and the Palestinians can make it work. Not immediately, like you suggest. But someone has to make the first step. The Palestinians can't, because they're the weakest side and they cannot negotiate from a position of power. The Israelis must make the first move. And endure through any turbulence that follows.
>> My hypothesis is that without a blockade, external munitions would be shipped in and used to try and obliterate Isreal.
That doesn't have to happen but I think 7 October was the worst Hamas will ever be able to do. It's not like they'll suddenly grow a modern army with F-16s and armor. The IDF will always be able to deal with whatever Hamas manage to throw at them, there is no question about that in my mind.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'm with you in that I want the same peaceful outcome to stabilize. It's just that I think Isreal is unwilling to allow even a lesser version of Oct 7 to happen in the future, and therefore I'm suspect that Isreal will let Hamas continue to exist, even if it flipped to majority-moderate led.
We will see how this plays out, but I hope Palestine can use this as an opportunity to rebuild and find some industry, such as tourism, to boost them economically and allow them to thrive.
We will see how this plays out, but I hope Palestine can use this as an opportunity to rebuild and find some industry, such as tourism, to boost them economically and allow them to thrive.
Well that is a mostly self inflicted problem.
You can't rob people from their land, force them to retreat into getthos, killing them, then expect that their descendants will be friends.
You also can't possibly have your ascendancy been victim of genocide and pretend this is the solution to your own problems.
You can't rob people from their land, force them to retreat into getthos, killing them, then expect that their descendants will be friends.
You also can't possibly have your ascendancy been victim of genocide and pretend this is the solution to your own problems.
They didn't 'rob them of their land.' The word "Palestinian" used to refer to jews.
Obviously it's all a bit complicated but a lot of people seem to have the idea that Israel was created out of whole cloth. They were pushed out of literally every other country in the region - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fh... - so they're clearly hated for reasons other than what you stated.
Obviously it's all a bit complicated but a lot of people seem to have the idea that Israel was created out of whole cloth. They were pushed out of literally every other country in the region - https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fh... - so they're clearly hated for reasons other than what you stated.
Jewish people take on no special moral obligations by being victims of the Holocaust. I can't tell if you were implying that they were, but just for clarity's sake.
> How is that unreasonable?
Because then you let people committing literal war crimes murder you while doing little to nothing to stop it (IIRC, using human shields is a war crime).
Because then you let people committing literal war crimes murder you while doing little to nothing to stop it (IIRC, using human shields is a war crime).
Israel uses AI to detect targets with all of their intelligence gathering. It uses precision weaponry. It drops pamphlets (which the US did in Iraq), calls apartments before bombing, has 4 hours of quiet the same time each day for civilian evacuations -- these are Israeli innovations.
Meanwhile Hamas hides in tunnels that are under hospitals, schools, mosques, residences making them military targets. They don't wear uniforms. They captured hostages.
Rooting terrorists out of tunnels is a very complicated task. Most cases of Urban combat such as Mosul don't involve tunnels, yet have much greater civilian to combatant ratio of casualties (3:1 in the case of Mosul).
Hamas never built bomb shelters for its civilians, unlike Israel. They had plenty of concrete to build tunnels for themselves.
The war would have been over by now except other nations have been slowing Israel down. These nations claim that they want the conflict to end but it won't unless Hamas surrenders or Israel finishes the job.
Rooting terrorists out of tunnels is a very complicated task. Most cases of Urban combat such as Mosul don't involve tunnels, yet have much greater civilian to combatant ratio of casualties (3:1 in the case of Mosul).
Hamas never built bomb shelters for its civilians, unlike Israel. They had plenty of concrete to build tunnels for themselves.
The war would have been over by now except other nations have been slowing Israel down. These nations claim that they want the conflict to end but it won't unless Hamas surrenders or Israel finishes the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-...
What can be done when Israel is willing to break the rules of engagement?
What can be done when Israel is willing to break the rules of engagement?
Here is a Palestinian being used as a human shield by an Israeli solider: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-i...
You began the sentence with "Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas" so you might not be aware that both sides use human shields.
Funny thing is, since this all kicked off I've seen several photos and videos clearly showing Israeli soldiers using civilians, including children, as human shields. I haven't seen any evidence of Hamas doing anything like this; it seems Hamas are mostly accused of this by Israel, simply because Hamas exists in a dense, urban environment.
jstarfish(1)
If your using other wars as a comparison like this what was the journalist per capita and have you adjusted for the prewar ratio per capita also. This seems like ham fisted attempts at statistics otherwise
[deleted]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39619763.
This is not a moderation scolding—I'm just trying to prune the top-heaviest subthreads.
This is not a moderation scolding—I'm just trying to prune the top-heaviest subthreads.
mschuster91(2)
What is striking about these casualties, is many of the reported deaths also include large numbers of family members of the deceased, killed at the same time.
So what is it then? The plausible deliberate targeting of the journalists mentioned? Or just, plain old indiscriminate bombing? Either ways, shame.
So what is it then? The plausible deliberate targeting of the journalists mentioned? Or just, plain old indiscriminate bombing? Either ways, shame.
[deleted]
transformi(7)
tety(8)
firebaze(1)
grumple(1)
rendall(5)
hersko(5)
feedforward(2)
incognos(2)
teleforce(1)
Jiro(2)
greatgib(3)
erokar(1)
hmmmcurious1(2)
myth_drannon(1)
This is totally off-topic and inappropriate for "Hacker News"
please dont let this site drift further away
please dont let this site drift further away
HN's approach to this kind of story has been stable for many years. There's no long-term drift [1], but there are random fluctuations, which often raise fears of a long-term drift [2].
If you want more explanation, see my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973 earlier in this thread, and the links back from there. If you read some of those and have a question I haven't already answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
[1] I say that because we're conscious of what the principles governing this are, and it's possible to apply them fairly consistently.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869
If you want more explanation, see my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973 earlier in this thread, and the links back from there. If you read some of those and have a question I haven't already answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
[1] I say that because we're conscious of what the principles governing this are, and it's possible to apply them fairly consistently.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869
There's thousands upon thousands of discussions on here about Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, Iran, USA/NSA, etc. Why is discussions about Israel suddenly "totally off-topic and inappropriate?"
One possible explanation is that journalists have a much higher probability of being close to where the fighting is, than healthcare workers.