Hacker News Reader

Comment by diggan | Hacker News Reader

Curious about the forbidden words he used, it seems to have been the following:

> I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.

https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553

> To repeat: War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies & should be called out for what they are.

> I will not relent.

https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713964519884513446

Removing the fact that this is about the Israel-Palestine situation, makes this look like relatively sane and balanced viewed of war crimes that I think most people could agree with.

But since this is about Israel and Palestine, that somehow makes his statements anti-Israeli I suppose?

View on HN

Should be rather un-controversial, given that many UN organizations were/are publishing statements warning about possible war crimes (and other international crimes) commited by Israel, and Israel is certainly capable of commiting them.

Some Israeli-Palestinian organizations are also calling out against war crimes.

https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20231019_one_crime_does_n...

When Israel is killing people by hundreds every day, and thretening millions to level their cities, while bombarding them and cutting them of from humanitarian aid, and basic living necessities, it's a very bad look for some moralizing companies to stand up against someone who just points out that this may be basically pretty bad, inhumane, even a war crime, no matter which side you like.

"War crimes" are not bad/tragic things that are occurring. War crimes require specific intent to say kill civilians. the laws of war acknowledge that civilians will die during war. The death of a civilian is not in and of itself a war crime.

Calling things war crimes in a factual manner when one doesn't have any ability to know what is occurring, is problematic. why? because one is making the argument that Israel is explicitly intending to target and kill civilians. If one is wrong about that, it's the equivalent of a blood libel.

As a simple example: if on average 1 in every 10,000 smart bombs would have a defect (i.e. a very small percentage) that turns it into a dumb bomb. One is lucky when that defective bomb doesn't kill any non targets. However, even if it it caused as massive tragic loss of life (as world media tried to pin on Israel for the self inflicted Hospital bombing), that accident is not a war crime. There is no intent, and using smart bombs (i.e. more expensive and more accurate) is in general proof that they were not acting recklessly.

Of course, if one believes Israel's entire existence is a "crime", then none of this matters to those people, because Israel's entire existence is a "crime" and even if they would only kill "combatants" without 0 civilian deaths, they would still view those deaths as "war crimes" (in the sense that if you're committing a crime, you can't claim self defense if your kill someone who is trying to stop you with physical force). I would argue that those who view Israel's existence as a "crime" are in general antisemites.

You cant run away from the crime of killing civilians by just chalking it up to “intention” or “the cost of war”. That’s called collective punishment and yes, that is a war crime.

If you have an issue with people making these claims without context, then here’s the UN itself calling out war crimes for both sides: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupi...

read what they wrote.

let's take their examples:

“We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said.

the experts are making the claim that Israel's attacks are indiscriminate. They do not have the ability to make that claim.

I would argue making that claim as fact already undermines their "impartiality".

In fact, it's well known that their are not impartial in general. As one can see from the report they quickly put out on the "hospital bombing"

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...

they are not a useful source. They repeatedly make claims of fact that they have zero ability to determine if true or not. For those that believe the IDF has zero credibility, one has to also believe they don't.

The experts quoted have no desire for the truth, as demonstrated by zero desire to correct themselves when they are shown to be spreading falsehoods.

I think it’s much the same as the US’s drone strike program in the Middle East - after so many times, it would take either incredible bias or actual irrationality to believe that these strikes were not approved with the knowledge that they would kill civilians, and potentially mostly kill civilians.

Maybe if it were just the first few dozen times, but it gets harder and harder to be charitable about their intentions…

I recommend you give it a full read as they explain (with examples) why they believe these acts are indiscriminate.

Regardless, the ex-ceo of WebSummit has made comments similar to what the UN is stating. I don’t see why that’s a cancellable offense or antisemitic. I suspect his connections to Qatar are what got him in real trouble.

they might believe they are, but they are stating as fact. They don't qualify their remarks.

And we know this from the link I shared where they talk about the hospital "bombing" as fact as what you would call "examples", which we now are generally accepting as false. That alone removes any of their credibility.

They report as fact things they do not know to be true, but only believe to be true, and even when we know that their "truth" is false, they don't correct themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com