Hacker News Reader

Comment by ASalazarMX | Hacker News Reader

> "On that day, our pair had the largest number of hits, 42 in all. My locator wasn’t supposed to shoot, but I gave him a break, because we were getting close to the end of our stint, and he didn’t have knees. In the end you want to leave with the feeling that you did something, that you weren’t a sniper during exercises only. So, after I had a few hits, I suggested to him that we switch. He got around 28 knees there, I’d say."

This is outright disgusting. I'm glad these kind of brutal policies are exposed and talked about.

View on HN

Snipers go through quite extensive “desensitization” training as they are guaranteed to see the immediate outcome of their actions and they also tend to operate in a conditions when its not a clear “them or me” scenario.

Shooting someone who’s shooting at you or your friends is easy, taking a shot form 100’s of meters at an unsuspecting target isn’t.

Their entire training is based around you are the weapon and you must do your job, Jarhead was quite a good movie about just how much emotional toll this mindset takes even or even especially in cases when they are actually denied fulfilling their role.

From day one when snipers appeared on the battlefield things like kill counts and leader boards amongst snipers appeared as a coping mechanism.

The politicians who ordered them to shatter the knees of thousands of protesters must have gone through the same desensitisation training.

What’s the alternative shooting them dead? Let’s not pretend that this is a quiet civil rights protest, the throwing of grenades, Molotov cocktails and the planting of IEDs at the border fence happens during it.

Injuries takes a less of a political toll both nationally and internationally than fatalities.

While it’s easy to say don’t shoot at all you can’t avoid the fact that a portion of those which get too close and are shot do have quite hostile intentions.

The issue with conflicts like these is thinking that there is a simple solution and that is for one side to stop.

The Israeli public will not tolerate casualties on their side which works both ways as it grants political will for things like the withdrawal form Lebanon and the disengagement from Gaza, however it also leads to policies like this as well as the policies of Targeted Killings that were imposed initially by the Rabin administration as a low intensity solution to the rabid wave of suicide bombing across Israel.

As long as there won’t be a sufficient political will on both sides to halt all hostilities for normalization to be possible there isn’t going to be a resolution to this conflict.

This is sadly a very realistic comment.

I do not have any stakes in that conflict (live in France and loosely know a few people with Jewish and Palestinian origins) and this is how I see that conflict with my untrained eye. People fighting for something hardly shareable (land) with hartred on both sides.

One case of such a situation which tuurned fine and that I am incredibly proud of is the relationship between France and Germany. 1914-18, 1939-45 and now school exchanges where children meet other children (and to my dismay - communicate in English...). Not French meeting Germans, just kids meeting kids.

I already mentioned that earlier but one of the greatest moments during such an exchange was a football match where they had spontaneously mixed teams, not Germany vs France.

> This is sadly a very realistic comment. ... this is how I see that conflict with my untrained eye

If your eye is untrained, how do you know that the comment is realistic? The data are the following: 183 Palestininans shot dead, 9200 shot in the knees "often with life-changing injuries". [1] On the Israeli side, 0 or 1 dead, 4 to 11 wounded. (data from Wikipedia).

These are the facts: an army shooting on people without receiving any damage. So, did you ask yourself where did you get the idea that the killed and wounded constituted an actual threat? I can tell you: it comes from the people who shot them. And do you think they would tell you they're shooting on harmless people? Of course not.

> People fighting for something hardly shareable (land) with hartred on both sides.

Again: you don't realise it, but this is spin. The two sides are not equal. One is illegally occupying the other's territory. The other one is not. When you see two people fighting in the street over a handbag, you don't say "they're fighting over something hardly shareable, with hatred on both sides". You ask yourself who is the owner of the handbag, and who's the thief.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/world/middleeast/israeli-...

> If your eye is untrained, how do you know that the comment is realistic?

Because it ends with "As long as there won’t be a sufficient political will on both sides to halt all hostilities for normalization to be possible there isn’t going to be a resolution to this conflict."

The main problem is that both sides probably have a point - one side will say they were there first, the other they were there longer etc. And, again, they will have a point.

This is very much different from your example with the thief who has objectively zero rights to the bag.

I honestly pity such never-ending wars dragged through generations where everyone will claim they are completely right and the others are completely wrong, with some selected numbers on hand.

In Europe, where I live, there were wars for 1000 years between countries who thought that the others were illegally occupying "their" territory. Some of these lands kept switching sides (Alsace/Lorraine/Moselle, Silesia, ...) and I am glad they are more or less settled now and people can live there in peace.

> Again: you don't realise it, but this is spin. The two sides are not equal. One is illegally occupying the other's territory. The other one is not.

A Google search for "why jews can historically have their land" or similar brings plenty of sources. I opened the first few and it looks clear that the land belongs to Jews.

A Google search for "why palestinians can historically have their land" or similar brings plenty of sources. I opened the first few and it looks clear that the land belongs to the Palestinians.

See the problem? I do not have a particular interest in that conflict so I do not have an opinion. I just see that people are killing each other for land and that both sides have lots of documentation to back their positions. And various political support worldwide (some for one side, some others for the other).

This thread is a good representation of the conflict at least partially as it includes a party which firmly made up their mind.

Anyone who’s willing to say that Palestinian militant groups pose no threat to Israelis is clearly not willing to debate in good faith.

Does it mean everyone who got shot posed an immediate threat? Probably not, however I find it very disturbing when a party ignores documented physical evidence of such instances simply because it came from a side they do not agree with.

Especially since this article is form an Israeli, which hints at even more dubious selective bias.

However I don’t think the core of the issue is who was there first and who’s land is it today, and who’s land should it be.

That will never yield constructive results if one side is utterly unwilling to face reality on principle.

Any solution to this problem would would require a partition of the land which will be acceptable to both sides in a manner that would A) Create a Palestinian State and B) Maintain Israel’s existence as it exists today; so far I haven’t seen any hints of this being possible.

Overall I also think that it is naïve to think that this conflict will be resolved without Jordan a state which was formed on 75% of the original British mandate.

A state which is predominantly Palestinian in its demographics even without accounting for any refugees from the 47 and 67 wars.

The refugee problem is also something that is unfortunately ignored. Even at the peak of the negotiations they were a sore sport as the Palestinian Authority always was in a position that any agreement between them and the Israelis will not cover the refugee issue and that would have to be solved separately.

I’m not even sure if refugees are even a correct term since Palestinians are the only ones who can’t get a UN refugee status, they got a special status which is quite problematic.

Countries are not allowed to settle Palestinian refugees, UNRWA the UN agency which is dedicated to them is banned form seeking any permanent solution which is why there are 70 year old refugee camps still. This combined with a unique status which is not only perpetual but also can be inherited as the descendants of any male Palestinian refugee also get to claim that status will eventually result in a situation that will not be resolvable.

However across all circles it’s extremely hard to find people who are willing to be honest about just how fucked the situation is and just how predictable the actions of both sides are given these parameters.

Look, I'm not even talking about the legitimacy of the state of Israel. I think it was a mistake to allow its creation but now, now entire generations of Israelis have been born there and that's their country. Period. You cannot roll back history, and especially you cannot expel millions of people to who knows where. So everything you said in your comment is completely pointless. I'll assume you said it in good faith and were not aware of advancing a straw man argument.

The problem is that Israel occupies portions of territory that formally don't belong to it- it drives away the indigenous population, subjects them to every form of violence and harassment, controls their borders and every aspect of their life, and builds settlements on their ground, where it installs its own civilian population. This has been declared illegal many times by all international authorities. It is in blatant contravention of international law. It generates enormous amounts of suffering and hatred. And it is not a state of things, it is a process. It is going on now, it inches a bit further every day and every year.

You say you don't have an opinion, but in fact you repeat exactly the things that those who don't want this process to stop would like to hear from you: that the question has two sides, that it's impossible to say who's right or wrong, that there are many opinions. It's a form of denialism (let's hear the other side, some say this but some say that, etc.).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com