Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway223223 | Hacker News Reader

So very true. I think if Mexico and Canada not only declared dead their intent to destroy the US but also decided to shoot rockets onto civilians on a daily basis (as does Hamas launches from the Gaza Strip), there would definitely be a tough response should they not stop (as the military invasion of Gaza). One also needs to consider that Israel offers cost-free, no-strings-attached medical care to Palestinians who show up at their borders with Israel. Israel also provides the Hamas regime and Gazans with power, water, and internet connectivity, all of this despite being fired on daily, having their civilians kidnapped and attacked by smuggling tunnels dug straight into Isrsel's territory, and being threatened with destruction. I definitely don't agree with many decisions the Israeli government has made, but despite what many believe, Israel definitely supports the Gazans and Wesr Bank residents in many ways.

View on HN

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11859848 and marked it off-topic.

Israel has occupied Gaza and West a bank, and resistance to military occupation is legal per the Geneva conventions. Gaza has always resisted the Israeli occupation hence it's punishment. There are continuous attacks upon Gaza from Israel too. The disparity in armed power and thus destruction is massive. In the last Gaza war about 20000 tons of bombs were dropped on Gaza, whereas what they launched against Israel was maybe a few tons.

1. Israel is no longer in control of Gaza 2. if you're going to fire stuff at a x1000 stronger military power, then maybe it's time you made better decisions (ref: peace deal made by Ehud Barak back in 2000, which Arafat sunk for no good reason)

Israel is in control of Gaza, as recognized by most observers. It controls the airspace, sea, and everything that goes in and out, as well as of course the continuous incursions into the territory.

According to the ceasefires which Israel has signed with Hamas, it's supposed to alleviate the siege on the strip, but it has never lived up to those ceasefires, whereas Hamas has. Continuing to devastate the territory economically, of course the people there will revolt!

Are you joking? If you lived next to Gaza, how could you trust them? They repeatedly have said they want to destroy Israel, in speech after speech, thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately into Israeli towns and villages, dozens of attack tunnels dug, and it's in the Hamas charter that Israel must be destroyed. There's some evidence that ISIS is now operating in Gaza, and some Gazan Arabs have gone to Iran for combat/terrorism training.

If not for the extremists controlling the Strip, and dominating the hearts and minds of its residents, Gaza could be a high tech paradise: foreign investment there could be huge, with Israeli factories and tech centers set up, agricultural enterprises, and billion dollar Mediterranean resorts along the gorgeous coast.

The idea that Gaza is a threat to Israel is not true, Israel has a huge, sophisticated military. It is Israel which is the threat to its neighbors, it's launched many wars. Israel has preached the same kind of destruction about Gaza and actually carried it out.

Regarding the history of Israel and the Palestinians, You should look at the history of the occupation. In the Gaza Strip, the 5m high walls concrete walls between the few thousand settlers who use way more resources, occupied about 1/3rd of the land, while over a million people lived around them in poverty. It's very cruel and brutal apartheid/imperialism by Israel understandably made Gazans angry. Things like arbitrary detention, mass torture of Palestinians, assassinations and so on which are the underpinning of the military occupation, this is what pushes people to extremism.

Well the walls have been working fantastically well for Israel. Suicide bombings just don't really happen anymore. Yeah sure, the knifings have been going on, but those kill a lot less people.

15 years ago there used to be a bombing every week.

The suicide bombings only came after attacks by Israel, each one was a response for an attack by Israel, for example attacking apartment buildings with helicopter gunships. That's important to remember - they have a context.

Yes the wall is working well for Israel, it's annexed more of the West Bank by default, and is disrupting the lives of Palestinians massively, and also the migration of wildlife.

There's been quite a lot of violence lately, death toll is still pretty high since late 2015.

I don't see your point. The US government has a long history of overthrowing governments (even democratically elected ones) in the middle east and other parts of the world. If you're trying to justify killing thousands of civilians with that their leaders are threatening you, it's an argument very closely resembling those extremists make against the US.

"the people there will revolt!"

- As they should, but you got it the other way around. They should rise against the fanatics among them who aim for Islam domination, the destruction of Israel. Those continuously attempting to kill innocent people.

Seriously, why do you think the naval blockade is in place? How does Israel benefits from it?

In any case, there are also a couple of facts you need to look into.

"Israel is in control of Gaza"

- Gaza is ruled by Hamas and it also has a border with Egypt

"it has never lived up to those ceasefires"

- When did they actually ceased to fire? (you know, you can't just occasionally bomb the other side during a ceasefire)

Israel instituted the separation fence in Gaza in 1993 during the Oslo process. It's remained there since despite being explicitly banned by the Oslo treaty, to which Israel is a signatory. It moved immediately to divide the West Bank from Gaza. If you look at the map, Gaza is the one possibly opening to Palestine to the rest of the world, Palestine is otherwise surrounded by hostile countries. This is why the blockade is maintained.

There were have been ceasefires in 2008 and 2012 where there were no rocket attacks. Hamas lived up to it. Most rocket attacks were in reponse to an Israeli action. It's a long history which I don't have time to go through now but has been covered by observers like Noam Chomsky. http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175892/

"Gaza is the one possibly opening to Palestine to the rest of the world, Palestine is otherwise surrounded by hostile countries. This is why the blockade is maintained."

- What exactly do you mean by Palestine? if you mean Gaza and the West Bank, then who are the hostile countries? Egypt, Jordan and Israel? Even if they are all "hostile" what do they gain by maintaining an expensive naval blockade (and providing alternative, regulated by security checks, routes, which also cost those "hostile" countries a lot of money)?

"There were have been ceasefires in 2008 and 2012 where there were no rocket attacks" "Most rocket attacks were in reponse to an Israeli action"

- Absolute lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_att..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_att.... I live here in the missile range. Noam Chomsky, a great linguist, an "Observer" from a different continent, is not a very good historian.

Gaza and Palestine are one, historically, and as the Oslo accords designate. They are artificially separated at present. Yes Egypt is hostile to Gaza, there was a brief period during the revolt when it wasn't but now it is, under Egyptian military dictatorship. Jordan is hostile, it's in a military alliance with Israel. Palestinian nationalism is against all of these countries' interests, that's why they have always countered it. For example Jordan in 1971 with Israel's aid put down a Palestianian revolt.

Ok I live in Pretoria, South Africa, where do you stay? Sderot?

Chomsky is a very fine scholar on Israel, one of the greatest. Very much worth reading, particularly "The Fateful Triangle" He was a Zionist, lived there.

> I think if Mexico and Canada not only declared dead their intent to destroy the US but also decided to shoot rockets onto civilians on a daily basis

Oh you mean like many Israelis don't just declare the intent to annex the west bank, but actually have settlements there / support them? The declarations are numerous, here's a recent and particularly shameless one.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news//1.723297

> Bennett also indirectly criticized Netanyahu for opposing a Palestinian state before the 2015 elections and supporting it after the elections.

> "The time has come to say clearly: The land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel," Bennett said. "In Hebrew, English, Russian and French; in summer and in winter; when there are elections and when there aren't. Why? Because the world listens to every word we say."

> "The world identifies weakness just as it identifies strength," Bennett added. "The world smells when we aren't certain about our right to the land and attacks us furiously with boycotts.

The people who want to annex the other side - which exist on both sides - each can't be excused with those on the other side.

> being threatened with destruction

Not really credibly so, and all the while while expanding settlements, demolishing houses, targeting human rights organizations, killing people and even faking evidence such as https://twitter.com/Channel2News/status/737971602260889600/v... - and other such things which all fall under "definitely not agreeing with many decisions" I would assume.

Yes, there's plenty of terrorism sold as "freedom fighting", and I agree it's terrorism. There's also plenty of blaming Israel for everything while not even criticizing Hamas or the absolutely useless Palestinian authorities. But this tale of bleeding heart Israel trying to do the very best, and being so misunderstood? Just look at a map, even that says a lot.

A far right politician in Israel does not represent the entire country, any more than Trump represents the entire U.S., much less so in fact since Israel is a very diverse multi-party democracy. The settlements are controversial, granted, but they are on barren land and in any event the Arabs simply don't accept any deal that's been offered over the decades. They have responded to every peace offering with horrific, murderous violence. They have no moral superiority. When people are deliberately killing babies and old women, it's very hard to sympathize with their cause. Under the circumstances, yes Israel is a bleeding heart and is doing its very best to restrain itself in the face of horrible provocations, and is very misunderstood by people who have little or no knowledge of the history and facts of the situation.

> When people are deliberately killing babies and old women, it's very hard to sympathize with their cause.

Right, and that's after you said "A far right politician in Israel does not represent the entire country".

> is very misunderstood by people who have little or no knowledge of the history and facts of the situation.

Notice how you didn't substantiate any of your claims, call the settlements "controversial" and seem to think that they are on "barren land" (right) would be relevant even if it was true, instead of a clear breach of Geneva conventions.

Even if you could justify an occupation, you cannot justify the settlements and the intention they represent, the deed that is being done, and trying to push that on "far right politicians" while treating Palestinians as a monolith, is just having a double standard.

I never claimed Palestinians have "moral superiority" and never would, because that's not how it works outside of sophistry. You don't work out who is worse, and then use them as a scapegoat for everything while absolving those who are "not the worst". Individual crimes do matter, and remain crimes even if the other party commits more. Which is not to be confused with "just because there are unsubstantiated claims the other party commits more", either. And all of that also applies to the "pro-Palestinians" who rage about how "the Zionists" are the worst, and how Israel is the worst. They peddle the exact same logic with roles reversed. "Don't criticize us, criticize them!"

"even if you could justify an occupation"

The so-called occupation is a military administration begun after retreating Arab armies ceded the territories in 1967. This arrangement is legal and covered under international conventions. The U.S. did it in Japan and Germany for five years; the Soviet Union did it in eastern Europe for 45 years. The Chinese illegally occupied the vast lands of Tibet in 1950 and show no signs of letting go and the U.N. says nothing.

The Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005, forcibly removing the settlers, and were rewarded with 11,000 rockets. 11,000! They have every right to inspect cargo that enters Gaza; the Syrians and Iranians have long tried to import deadly weapons into that sorry land, and if they ever succeeded, Israel would have no choice but to reduce the place to rubble finally and completely and drive the Arabs from there back into Egypt which is where their ancestors came from 100-150 years previously.

As for "didn't substantiate any of your claims" for Pete's sake open up a newspaper once in a while. Two Jewish women in their 80s were just stabbed to death in Israel -- reports say they begged Arab workers nearby to call emergency services and the Arabs ignored them. Two elderly women in their eighties. Just today, probably while the above commenter was writing that stuff, there was a shooting attack in Tel Aviv, two Arab brothers from Hebron just opened up in a restaurant and killed four people and wounded several others before the police shot and wounded them. The Hamas leader, mistakenly believing one to be killed, called him a "hero". Just today. One of thousands of similar such incidents. Sophistry indeed. This is war, an ongoing and bitter war to drive the Jews out or kill them all. Israelis are totally justified and indeed should be doing a lot more.

> The Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005, forcibly removing the settlers, and were rewarded with 11,000 rockets

That wasn't because they removed the settlers, that's because they simply flat out withdrew.

> As for "didn't substantiate any of your claims" for Pete's sake open up a newspaper once in a while.

I know about the terrorist attacks, but that doesn't make the settlement land all "barren", it doesn't mean they "They have responded to every peace offering with horrific, murderous violence" -- it wasn't Palestinians who killed Rabin, you know -- and it doesn't fuse Palestinians into one monolith, something which you pointed out about Israelis but seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge here.

To what "peace offering" are the recent terrorist attacks a response? Who claimed they have "moral superiority", how is such a dichotomy be useful? Listing off instances of terrorism if I didn't know that, when I even said

> there's plenty of terrorism sold as "freedom fighting"

does not substantiate anything but one claim, one you didn't even make, namely "there is terrorism". I mean yeah, duh. My comment takes that into account from the get go. You claimed "there is terrorism in response to every peace offer", that's not the same thing.

> The so-called occupation is a military administration begun after retreating Arab armies ceded the territories in 1967. This arrangement is legal and covered under international conventions. The U.S. did it in Japan and Germany for five years; the Soviet Union did it in eastern Europe for 45 years.

Same here -- your point being? I know that, but since occupation can not forever, at least not as intention, and settlements are never okay, what I said is true now, where it's easy to justify occupation, and also when it might not be.

You can't talk peace while expanding settlements by force. Leibowitz was and remains right, it's just colonialism. And even if there is nobody to talk to atm, don't take what's not yours, and don't confuse self-defense and abuse. That goes for everybody at all times. I'm all for Israeli not taking shit, but to not see how driving out Palestinians also MUST be the intention of people who don't want them to have a state, that's just dishonest. To say "oh those are just far-right politicians, those don't count", isn't made up for with listing atrocities.

> Israelis are totally justified

With what, exactly? Just generally? Because they are "the victim"? I just explained why it doesn't work that way, if you want to dispute that, do so.

>A far right politician in Israel does not represent the entire country,

He was in the coalition!

Why did you use Mexico and Canada for your analogy, when the more apt analogy was the Native Americans?

Have the native Americans still completely accepted in their heart, their peace with (or surrender to) the settlers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com