Hacker News Reader

Comment by bradrn | Hacker News Reader

As a Jew, please let me note: these people are extremists. They are not representative of the majority of supporters of Israel around the world. They are not representative of the viewpoints of many Jews. And even in Israel their views are highly controversial, and actively opposed by large segments of the population. (Look up the recent protests if you want proof.)

So please don’t assume, as many people do, that all Jews everywhere — or all Israel-supporters — subscribe to these same views. Many of us disagree with them as vehemently as you do.

View on HN

The culpability of association in a thorny question.

As you say, millions of Israelis (and the Jewish diaspora) don't support these people.

... but, parts of the Israeli government do.

So how should responsibility/blame be apportioned in a democracy with a vocal opposition minority?

I don't know. But it'd be a useful answer for every other country with voting in the world too (US, UK, Russia, etc).

I'll point out the Jews outside of Israel have as much say as you do. And really your government doesn't do anything material to stop the settlers from committing genocide either. Oh they complain and strongly condemn but who cares.

You're going down a dark road when you start trying to hold individuals personally accountable for what their government does.

Jews outside Israel have more say than anyone. If it wasn't for America's seemingly unconditional support, Israel wouldn't be able to pursue actions like this. For some insane reason, America is ostensibly willing to support Israel's crimes all the way to the brink of Armageddon. The stakes are that Lebanon and Iran join in the conflict, which has given America cause for serious concern, but Israel seems more determined than ever. The root of the problem lies, as it often does, with America.

So your down the dark road then. Going to blame a non-self selecting group of people for something.

The reality is the US plays the heavy while all the other countries get to have their cake and eat it too. They can vote endlessly against Israel knowing the US will be the single no vote. Which suits them just fine. There is no brink of Armageddon because no one that is anyone cares about the Palestinians in Gaza and despite their protects they are perfectly happy with Israel exterminating Hamas. Because if you're a political leader you instinctively understand Hamas is bad news.

Also you're ignoring that while unlike you, Jews in the US don't support genocide against Jews in Israel. They are more critical and willing to apply pressure than say Evangelical Christians, your politicians and your business leaders. So you're mostly blaming the wrong people because it conveniently avoids pointing a finger back at you.

Quite a chunk of Israel's population seem to be extemists, as these extremists are literally in the government. Also majority of Israeli voters don't seem to mind empowering these extremists to further their own interests (this is of course not specific to Israel, although endorsing and actually enacting genocide level extremists are rather rare).

Look at the previous protests where palestinian protestors were vilified from all sides.

They are not literally the government, they are a small part of the government (still troubling!). This was mainly because Ben Gvir promised security and being "tough on terror" and people bought into his propaganda and voted for him. I doubt this will be repeated in the next elections.

There have been massive (unprecedented in Israeli history) demonstrations in Israel for the last 10 months against this terrible government that formed and their attempts at destroying the country.

I said in the goverment. Typically having a minister is the definition of being in the government. That they are not a larger part is of course a good thing.

The protests were not about the genocide and apartheid. They were mostly about the interal power struggle, which is all well and good, but not protesting against genocide and apartheid per se.

Apologies, I missed the "in", but my comment still applies to the sentence right after and the overall sentiment.

The protests were against the government as a whole and many of their actions including their messianic ambitions which include settlements (was a main point of discussion, though sometimes overshadowed by their attempt to weaken the legal institutions).

I really don't want to get into politics on HN, but there is no genocide nor apartheid, this is just Hammas propaganda. Israel has the means to kill Palestinians and it doesn't. There are Muslims and Arabs in the Israeli legislative body, including ones that say that Israel shouldn't exist. How is this apartheid? Anyhow, even with the above, there were in fact a lot of pro Palestinian and anti settlement demonstrations during these demonstrations. How do I know? I've been to these demonstrations and saw the signs and Palestinian flags.

Amnesty, HRW and UN, among others, characterize the situation as apartheid. Are these part of the Hamas propaganda machinery too? Politicians in Israeli gov have called for ethnic clensings. Legal privileges based on ethnicity are quite rare, at least for "western democracies".

There were indeed some Palestinian flags in the protests, but they weren't exactly warmly welcomed. I'm of course relying on what I read.

https://archive.is/pgh1S

Palestinian flags: the article you showed was from the first demonstration (or one of the first). There were many more in future ones and no clashes. FWIW I personally think raising the flag of an enemy state is distasteful, but Israel is a democracy.

The UN still hasn't condemned the October 7th attack nor Hammas's use of civilians as human shields. Not sure about the rest. So I wouldn't call them an unbiased authority.

Politicians in Israel have called for ethnic cleansing, fringe crazy politicians. Marjorie Taylor green blamed California wildfires on Jewish space lasers. I hope you don't let that paint your views on the US legislative bodies.

As for different laws about ethnicities (probably the source for calls of apartheid): it's very limited, the main thing is that diaspora Jews can get citizenship automatically. This law is to help Jews anywhere escape from antisemitism. If you're an Israeli citizen however (muslim, jewish, christian or whatever), you have equal rights under the law.

It's easy to parrot things like apartheid, but it's more like 0.001% apartheid in the most technical sense, and not what people mean it when they say this word.

As for the comparison to western democracies: I think Israel is doing very well, even compared to some of the world's oldest democracies (France/Swiss multiple Muslim related bans, US during the trump administration, etc.), but the people drawing this comparison usually advocate for replacing it with Hammas which is a proper terrorist organization that advocates for killing all non Muslims, killing lgbt, etc. It's a classic Utopia fallacy gone to the extreme.

> The UN still hasn't condemned the October 7th attack nor Hammas's use of civilians as human shields. Not sure about the rest. So I wouldn't call them an unbiased authority.

The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either.

Some commenters use terminology like “apartheid” and “civil unrest” to describe this situation, so perhaps people in the UN also view this as a internal issue and they don’t want to comment on domestic terror?

How is Hammas attacking Israel an internal issue? It's a foreign actor invading a country (literally taking down the border) and attacking Israel.

Even if it was the case though, the UN has condemned Israel multiple times, why the difference? Shouldn't they avoid condemning Israel too as it's an internal dispute?

Some people do not internalize the idea that Palestine is a sovereign nation. At best, they consider it an occupied territory thus any conflict they have with Mother Israel is couched in terms like apartheid, segregation, and colonization.

For an examples, look at how many commenters on this thread are calling this an “internal dispute” even though they fully support Palestine.

Some Palestinian supporters don’t even recognize Hamas as the government of the Gaza Strip. How can a country exist without a government? People are just in support of the people.

I'm not saying that they are or they aren't. I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. Either it's an internal conflict or not. Though you can't have a one-sided agenda like the UN, at least in response to the October 7th terrorist attacks.

In an internal conflict the only side you can put political pressure on is the ruling government.

Let’s take as a hypothetical, some Waco style paramilitary starts terrorist sticks in the US, and in response the US military begins shelling Chicago night and day killing thousands more civilians and the terrorists ever did.

Should the UN come out and censure both sides? The terrorists are just domestic criminals, and the UN doesn’t have a particular interest in that. However turning your military against helpless civilians is something the UN does care about.

I’m not sure this fits 100% but it’s the logic I’m following.

The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either.

Unfortunately, that's kind of the point. The UN has issued twice as many condemnations of Israel as of the rest of the world combined.

Some parts of the UN do important work -- UNESCO, WHO, FAO, etc. But they are unreliable when it comes to matters of justice. They had to retire the predecessor to the Human Rights Commission because it was dominated by countries who commit lots of abuses, and the new version isn't really any better.

In particular the UN can't be trusted when it comes to Israel. There are a lot of Islamic countries, and they have made a lot of allies for the specific purpose of condemning Israel. And since Israel is a key ally of the US, it becomes the focus of anti-UN sentiment as well.

That's not to justify everything Israel does. Far from it. It would be better if there were an organization capable of evaluating the situation objectively, to sort out the truth under a barrage of propaganda from all sides. Instead, we get the UN offering meaningless and predictable condemnations.

Settlements in the West Bank are the culprit. When settlers settle in some area, they need protection. Barriers, permanent road closures, security gates, even welding the doors facing roads that are used exclusively by non-Palestinians, surveillance-these protective measures cause huge inconvenience to non-Jewish people (both Christians and Muslims) in the West Bank.

Whether one calls it apartheid or not, Israelis and their government should find a way to resolve the problem of protecting settlers at the cost of others. Otherwise, it can create a huge backlash across the world: (a) Al Jazeera and social media have showed these to the outside world (b) support for Israel is waning in the West--especially among liberals (c) there is even less support for Israel among the younger generation in the West, so expect more backlash from the future policy makers.

I hate the settlements as much (or more) as the next guy, but I respectfully disagree. West Bank is not Gaza. Israel FORCIBLY removed all of the settlements from Gaza in 2006, and look where this got us. There is nothing going on in Gaza, and that's still the source of the conflict, the West Bank is chill in comparison. Also, when Israel left the settlements in Gaza they left behind factories, crops, housing, everything. Did Palestinians move there? Use the resources? No, they turned them into terrorist training grounds. :|

I think the settlements are terrible, and we should destroy all of them, but this is just classic PR switcheroo. As I said, West Bank is not Gaza, they have a different government, the West Bank is flourishing and the quality of life there is great. Leaving Gaza and removing all the Israeli forces from there ended up being worst, not better for the people of Gaza.

I am quite sympathetic to the view point that Arab countries don't want a Jewish state in the middle east, and that when Muslims become majority, they don't want to peacefully co-exist with Jews and others. I am not ignorant about Gaza and the West bank are different.

There are so many people out there who explain Hamas' attack in terms of these: (a) Israel subverting two-state solution (b) apartheid in the West bank in order to protect settlers. This view point has many supporters even among non-Muslims in the West. What do you say about that to those who condemn Hamas' attack on Oct 7 and who also subscribe to the foregoing explanation?

Israel's treatment of West Bank settlements is indeed abusive and bad faith. It's the result of a fanatical subset of Israelis who are influential in its right-wing government. The current government has a lot to answer for -- including a series of corruption trials.

But Gaza is not the West Bank. They are geographically and politically separate. Gaza is in the opposite position: Israel withdrew its settlements. They allowed Hamas to take over the government. Some claim that was a deliberate choice by that same right-wing government, to make it seem as if Palestinians were incapable of governing themselves. (I cannot vouch for the truth of that, but it's clear that Israel did not approach its abandonment of Gaza entirely in good faith.)

Nonetheless, there's no way to justify Hamas' attack on October 7 in terms of the West Bank situation. It has nothing to do with sympathy over settlers. It's entirely due to a dedicated campaign of genocide against Jews, explicitly referenced in the Hamas charter.

What's happening in the West Bank might be described as apartheid. But the situation in Gaza makes it clear that it's not mere racism. There is a genuine threat, not just of attack but of atrocities. I think that makes it harder to justify comparisons to South Africa, which deliberately gloss over real horrors. It's hard to attribute that deliberate ignorance to anything other than antisemitism.

Orthodox Jewish folks don't need to serve in IDF, and yet they produce more kids. So, more votes and better poll participation from the Orthodox side skew these problems. That's what I heard on some show.

I am not justifying Hamas' attack on Israeli people. What does a justification do, anyway? It transforms unjust acts into just acts using some or another theory, ideology, etc. With this side comment out of the way, how do you explain Hamas' attacks, major support for Hamas from Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem? One explanation most people seem to accept is that folks in Gaza are bottled up, such a pressure cooker just blew up. Another related explanation: Israel has subverted two-state solution, leading to pressure cooker situation.

I have no problems in accepting the claim that they are anti-Jewish and that they don't want a Jewish state in the Middle East. That's what many a muslim would say in private conversations. This discussion can't be had in the West today, due to political correctness: when Islam is power or when Islam dominates a society, they have problems with non-Islamic people (history of Islam shows that). When Islam is in minority or lacks the power, different tunes are sung.

> Israel has the means to kill Palestinians and it doesn't.

This has to be one of the most startling claims I've ever seen on HN. Here's a graph that slightly contradicts your claim. https://israelpalestinetimeline.org/charts/

This makes it very hard to take anything else you say at face value.

Not to belittle 30,000 casualties (terrible still), if this is the death toll in 23 years, which is based on Hammas reported number, includes "militants" (terrorists) and many other deaths, and all while fighting in a very densely populated area against a group using civilians as human shields: the Israeli death machine is doing a very poor job.

Edit: I looked at this source closer, this is a random blog by an obvious biased source (general credibility aside). Using pictures of Palestinians in the header, saying that there's strong evidence that Israel is behind the bombing at the hospital parking lot, and still claiming that there were ~500 casualties there. Again, going back to the lame death machine argument: on one hand Israel is bad and using precise bombs that take down building, but on the other they somehow attacked a hospital parking lot with a weak bomb that caused little to no damage? Nevermind the ample evidence to the contrary of these claims, just this should give you a hint by how unlikely it is.

You seem to have gotten a little side tracked. You claimed that Israel doesn't kill Palestinians - have you got a reputable source for this obviously false claim?

This was said in response to claims of intentional genocide, not civilian damage.

No, you've introduced the word "intentional" there. You were responding to a post about genocide and apartheid by downplaying it and claiming Israel doesn't kill Palestinians.

> I really don't want to get into politics on HN, but there is no genocide nor apartheid, this is just Hammas propaganda. Israel has the means to kill Palestinians and it doesn't.

This is the full quote you originally cut. It is obvious that this refers to killing in the context genocide (the same way the rest of the text refers to apartheid).

Even if you originally thought in earnest that I meant any killing (which is obviously ridiculous), I made it clear multiple times that this was not what I meant.

Israel has one of the most modern militaries in the world, with a deep reserve system.

If their goal was to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties, it would be a lot worse.

Gaza is an incredibly densely populated area, within range of Israeli artillery, with complete Israeli air and naval superiority.

If Israel wanted to, it likely has the conventional means to flatten every structure in Gaza. Given there are ~2.5M people there, that would produce orders of magnitude greater casualties.

Right now... they're definitely not doing that.

At the same time, civilian collateral deaths apparently aren't a hard line for them, if they believe they're attacking a Hamas target.

So, somewhere in the middle.

Who said anything about "maximizing Palestinian civilian casualties"? The GP claimed that Isreal doesn't kill Palestinians, which it quite clearly does.

Do you not see a difference between targeting civilians and collateral civilians deaths during a military conflict? Or are just being pedantic?

In theory, there is obviously a difference between the two things you mentioned. However, from what we can see happening in reality, there is no indication that Israel's military makes that distinction. See this article for a summary of the destruction up to November 12: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-inflicts-...

Let us assume that Israel is truthful about every claim they made about Hamas being inside or under pretty much every school, hospital, religious object, and other building that is normally protected from being attacked by the international law of war, and let us assume that their indiscriminate destruction of such objects is legitimate. Does that naturally extend to also include over 45% residential housing units (from the article) absolutely needing to be destroyed or damaged?

From the article: "An Israeli reporter who was taken to see the Gazan town of Beit Hanoun by the Israeli military reported on Sunday that "barely a single inhabitable building remains standing". More than 52,000 people had lived there before the war."

Was the killing of more than 4500 children also absolutely unavoidable, and not just a part of a campaign of vengeful destruction and killing to satisfy bloodlust that is bordering on genocide?

The reports from the ground just don't match the stated goals of the Israeli government and military, nor their stated excuses for so much bloodshed. Let us for the moment pretend that naming killed innocent civilians 'collateral damage' somehow makes their killing okay, and that saying that "Hamas hides among civilians and uses them as human shields" somehow makes it okay to just bomb all those civilians, hoping to also get some militants in the process. We can all make a very good guess that had Hamas fled inside an Israeli city and hid among that city's population, there wouldn't have been indiscriminate bombing of that city with all the killed Israeli citizens being merely proclaimed collateral damage and "oh well, hamas used them as human shield, so we had to bomb them to death". There would have been very precise military action involving a lot of ground fighting, in order to actually minimize civilian deaths, because then it would be civilians that they actually care about. Palestinians, on the other hand... unfortunate human shields and all. Their deaths seem welcome, if anything. And that's genocidal intent.

I'm not being pedantic, no. I'm pointing out that the comment claimed that Israel does not kill Palestinians. It made no mention of "collateral civilian deaths", it made no mention of "maximising Palestinian civilian casualties", it made no mention of "civilians" at all - these are all things that you brought into the conversation. The comment claimed "Israel does not kill Palestinians", no matter how many straw men you want to introduce to appease your own blood lust, this is patently false.

Out of curiosity, what's the opinion of the "generic, politically-apathetic Israeli" (inasmuch as such exists) on Israeli protesters supporting Palestinian rights (in whatever form)?

Is there room for them being viewed as loyal opposition? Or does the current climate make all-people-have-rights viewpoints rub folks the wrong way?

During the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war in the US, there was a marked shift to "It may be bad... but now isn't the time to say anything. Be patriotic." And that wasn't even directly linked to an attack on national soil, like Israel faced!

Phew, that's a hard one. People are still demonstrating for the safety of the Palestinian people, and the Israeli army is very much aligned with that (Israel provides medical supplies, helps evacuate people, etc.). In fact, the leading slogan in Israel is "Free Palestine, from Hammas". Though at least from what I'm saying there's a lot of talk about unity, so there's probably less public tolerance for protests. The thing is, Hammas butchered a lot of peace activists in this attack, they killed babies, they raped women, and they kidnapped many people. Everyone's children is now in Gaza fighting for the safety of everyone in Israel, and its mere existence. I think protesting about anything other than the return of the 240 hostages still help in captive would be considered bad taste.

"Free Palestine, from Hammas" is a beautiful way of phrasing it.

It's always good to have an aspirational mission statement, lest our worst selves be absolved from responsibility for decisions we let them make.

I've been to Israel and know what you are saying. Most people I met in Tel-aviv are secular jews (and arabs) and really have a liberal mindset. Such a great vibe as well.

The problem of moderates (which I am part of in my country) is that they don't like to speak up or enter discussions with the extremist or crazies.

So those people speak unopposed while we stand on the sides just shaking our heads, and little by little (much faster now with internet) they attract followers.

If you like history you'll find these kind of social setup in many places, but most notoriously (Godwin's law, I know) in early 1930s Germany, where Hitler and the Nazi party were seen as extremist, clownish, etc... until suddenly they were in power and it was too late for people to fight them.

Moderates unite?

FWiW I'm not Jewish although we've got a nice Jewish kid who's now part of the extended family having left Israel some years back largely because of the extremists there.

I deplore the actions of Hamas, I deplore the response of the IDF and those in power, it's a horrific shit sandwich with a large number of civilian innocents all around.

I do hope this cools down as quickly as possible for the sake of the majority on both sides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com