'Like we were lesser humans': Gaza boys, men recall Israeli arrest, torture

Are you asking about how one can possibly be "curious" in the face of a catastrophe like this, and what that even means? I think that's a legit question. If curiosity means a detached-technical attitude, that is not an appropriate response to this topic and could in some forms even be monstrous. But that's not what I mean here. What I do mean, I tried to describe at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662. It has to do with being open to others.

What is really interesting is that unemployment rate for PL is 25.7pc vs Egypt's 7pc. So the average income for PL is higher! 4610 v 4100

Also interesting is that PL has a higher life expectancy.

Sadly, both are very corrupt.

It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...

Consider that asking about support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing, especially when a portion of those polled were in the war zone.

Now consider the extent to which provoking this kind of reaction was Hamas' goal in light of polls showing people wanting them out in a situation where their legitimacy as a political leadership kept dropping with each year without another election.

> This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.

After this? Maybe. Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above. Which might make one want to ask why the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction and what that says about the extent to which they want peace, because given the sharp but predictable changes in polling this reaction is clearly entirely counter-productive.

In regards to the 60% you quote, the question was framed as "How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?"

Given the majority of Gaza has trouble accessing the news/electricity, 95% don't trust Israel's news (in the same survey), what they know about Oct 7 is not what we know about Oct 7. Whether you and I believe it or not, there are plenty who think all the targets on Oct 7 were military, any atrocities are fake news, etc. And for a people suffering under blockade for 16 years, including a year of weekly peaceful protests in 2018-2019 that were repeatedly met with violence by the IDF (~200 killed, thousands maimed/disabled), living in slums with little to no electricity [1], seeing their lives deteriorate year after year as the world has forgotten them - it would not be surprising at all for them to support a "military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance."

Furthermore, we're talking about a survey taken in the midst of war where 46% have lost their homes (same survey you shared), 80% of Gaza is displaced, and all the thousands of civilian and children deaths and tens of thousands of maiming and mutilations etc. Hospitals destroyed. Bakeries and water towers bombed. Journalists and health care workers murdered. ... Unclear how many, but probably all of the population has PTSD; 90% of the children had PTSD back in 2021 [2]. So in that context, in the midst of such immense suffering, the answer to this question should not be surprising at all. It is completely rational.

However, it would not be accurate for us to conflate their answer with supporting atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct 7 (which is not something it seems the survey asked about).

>> Many people on the ground support the conflict Re: Gaza, the survey you link says 90% "support a ceasefire that includes a mutual cessation of hostilities." So I don't think it's accurate to say the civilians of Gaza support this conflict.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/harsh-living-conditions-in... [2] https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/4497/New-Report:-91%25...

>>>> post-edit I had missed that the survey parent comment linked was completed before Oct 7. My bad.

Remember poster: Despite the Romulan's insistence, There...are...four...lights!

Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. And that won't hapoen for all kinds of reasons. Displacing all Gazans isn't a solution neither so, and if tried it would isolate Israel internationally. And by extension of that risking of deviding the world at large into supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians, in which case this whole thing could blow up in everyones faces.

Maybe the only thing worse than trying is not trying.

Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.

The humanitarian impact on the Palestinian population extends beyond immediate casualties. The long-term effects of the blockade on Gaza, restrictions on movement, and economic hardships cannot be overlooked. These factors contribute to a broader context of suffering and human rights issues.

In discussing moral failings, it's essential to recognize the complexities and nuances of this conflict. The focus should be on seeking solutions that prioritize the protection of all civilians, uphold human rights, and work towards a just and sustainable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The sanctity of human life must be the cornerstone of any military strategy, and efforts towards peace must include addressing the root causes of the conflict, ensuring accountability, and respecting international laws and human rights for all parties involved.

Because it is Abbas (PA President) who decides when there are elections and he was always going to lose badly?

> If the Israeli government had done anything to help Palestinians have viable jobs or elections, for example, then the Hamas leaders would have had to justify their positions rather than blaming all of their problems on Israel.

This doesn't answer to my argument, that Hamas has quasi-state resources, and no outside radicalization could compete with the radicalization they can create by simply controlling education.

Anyway, your argument is that it's Israel's job to manage the country next door. That would make sense only in a non-two-state reality where Israel is legally responsible and controls the relevant areas. You can't run elections in areas you don't control. But Israel hasn't controlled the Strip since 2005...

> The underlying problem is that Netanyahu liked having Hamas as a justification for why they couldn’t allow Palestinians to have a state, and as a bogeyman...

Partially true. But consider the alternative was to wage a war like this one. For this reason, nearly all of the Israeli Left supported the same policy... How many people would have supported this war without radical Hamas aggressive to begin it?

Did lots of non-combatants die? without a doubt. Is it sad? also without a doubt.

Were all the generations after that allowed to grow up and live in relative peace and prosperity because of that? Yes they were.

The reason things keep getting worse for the Palestinian's is because they insist on squandering any aid they get on buying more and more weapons - very little of that makes it to the 'women and children'. Until that cycle is stopped, nothing will change.

Hamas is perfectly willing to use their own women and children as human shields - those terrorists need to be killed with extreme prejudice, which will include a lot of collateral damage - until that happens, there will be no peace for anyone.

Again, my point was that while those countries didn’t have it great, they had peace after brutal wartime conditions and the prospect of rebuilding. Yes, having to flee would be unpleasant but they ended up in another part of their country where they were unquestionably welcome, spoke the language, and were able to participate in the government (which certainly hadn’t been the case for the previous decade for anyone who wasn’t a committed Nazi), and then the victors were rather generous in helping them rebuild.

The Israel-declared buffer zone is 100m or total exclusion, and 300m where only farmers may enter and only by foot. In practice the murder risk area (during normal times, not during publicized invasions, where the murder risk area is more universal) is 1000-1500m.

This is, of course, inside Gaza; nothing prohibits Israel from backing its border installations off a safe distance from the border and having a murder zone in Israel instead, which would at least be superficially consistent with its pretense not to occupy or exert any control within Gaza between its periodic invasions.

They have cameras everywhere, including automated guns, a 100m buffer zone, and they didn’t see what was going on?

They didn’t see the breach, the hundreds of Hamas fighters crossing over? And they didn’t react for hours? And Netanyahu says they will only answer about Israel’s intelligence failure “after the war”?

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights"

i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel.

This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders.

They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.

> Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions.

That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.

Those were settlers, attempting to lay claim to land in Gaza

While Egypt physically controls the border Israel decides what and who can move through it.

Nethanyahu supports Hamas (see money transports most recently, but they've done it for decades) to divide and conquer Palestine between Hamas and PA. And a good Boogeyman is always good for staying in power, though he is likely finished.

As to a one-state solution, given that this is what worked in Northern Ireland and in Spain, as well as South Africa, it does seem reasonable.

As with Germany, perhaps allocating some spending to aiding a populace rather than fostering a new generation of vendetta by bombing them, would bring the two sides together? People who have a better QOL are less likely to be violent.

And decades later, South Africa is probably one of the most dangerous countries to live in, where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common and people who have any kind of money live in gated compounds with heavy security. South Africa doesn't look too much like a success story to me, and certainly doesn't look like it's completely eliminated a form of apartheid, it's just replaced apartheid enforced by the national government with an apartheid at the local levels.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform...

"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."

Israel controls Gaza's borders. Israel controls the sea. Israel controls Gaza's airspace. Israel controls the products entering and exiting Gaza. Israel controls even more areas than this. The occupation is ongoing.

> [Don't] you think Hamas laying down arms and renouncing violence would be a good first step towards convincing the Israelis to lift the blockade?

People living under occupation have a right to armed resistance under international law. Israel has no right to continue its occupation.

I do not care if you continue your live in Russia or Israel...

A) that's kind of saying colonisation is OK because other countries did it

B) the colonisation in Israel is ongoing and extreme. The West Bank is the site of continuing expropriation and settlement with the explicit aim of shunting the Palestinians into tiny enclaves and rendering any possibility of a Palestinian state impossible, and creating something strongly resembling apartheid South Africa.

See e.g. public statements by Naftali Bennett or Benjamin Netanyahu

+ "We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba" - Agricultural Minister of Israel.

+ “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly...We will eliminate everything - they will regret it" - Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister.

+ "dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip an option" - Heritage Minister.

+ "Nakba? Expel them all,” Nissim Vaturi, deputy speaker for Israel’s parliament.

+ "There will be no electricity and no water (in Gaza), there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell." Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian.

+ "only solution left is "voluntary" evacuation of Gazans to countries around the world" - Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

+ "If it [Hezbollah] makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza we know how to do in Beirut," - Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister.

+ "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember" - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (that verse goes on to command King Saul in the first Book of Samuel to kill every person in Amalek, a rival nation to ancient Israel)

As referred to in other comments, terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain were solved by coming to the negotiating table. Additionally, rather than bombing civilians which is more likely to Foster a new generation of terrorists out for revenge, Israel could simply spend that war chest donated by the US ($3bn / year and a $14bn aid package) invest in Gaza, give the citizens at least the daily minimum of water recommended by the UN (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...) and a reliable electricity supply. As the country responsible for these resources it is inhumane to do otherwise. There is a correlation between treating people well, and a lack of violence from them.

Of that aid from the US to a distinctly non-third world country, this is probably the most interesting question. Countries very rarely give money for free, so something is being bought here. Nowhere is the question being asked what that is, but it points to unsaid motives.

Regarding ceasefire, Israel has broken a total of 17 ceasefires in the past. Ranging from assassinations to straight up bombing civilians during ceasefire period.

I don't understand your reasoning with "they do roof knocks, and tell people to evacuate, so it's all good when civilian areas get demolished and children die, that's war!"

Israel has done nothing but lie since the beginning of this genocide.

This is all happening alongside the blatant terrorism happening in the West Bank with the settlers. You can't seriously defend a nation when the leader is openly saying "wipe them all out - all of them."

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago. In my view it's basically a direct result of Israeli & Western foreign policy. It's really hard to take land from people and in some cases commit literal massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) and not end up with a significant portion of the affected population turning to terrorism.

The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?

The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise. You don't have Northern Ireland back to the Irish and bow to terrorism. Instead you strike hard and eventually they'll make peace.

Stable government in power is needed. Which then can reduce violence by agreements stepping back in lockstep from violence. Pre requisite for that are stable societies not ramping up for loopdeformation showdowns.

Cue pandemonium, and wild crossfire.

We DO have actual gun footage camera of Israeli Apache helicopters firing indiscriminately. Plus we have the testimony of those helicopter pilots, as reported by Haaretz, that they had no clue who was who, and they just emptied their weapon stores on anything that moved, and kept going back to base to reload and repeat.

ALL of the above is taken VERBATIM from Israeli sources, reported by the Israeli media.

You haven't looked at any of it. Just blindly repeating the same tired old narrative, long after it has been debunked.

After all, why is Israel BURYING all the forensic evidence (burned out cars, etc) in the desert? Or... you didn't know about either (widely reported even in the US)

And Hamas took hostages for the SAME reason they ALWAYS took hostages. To free the THOUSANDS of innocent Palestinian hostages languishing in Israeli dungeons. Or are you going to pretend that that's not true either?

For goodness sake, J Paul - the US State Dept official who resigned in protest gave interviews talking about EXACTLY THIS, and even shared cases that he personally was involved in where Palestinian child hostages were sexually abused/raped by their Israeli captors.

You can stick your fingers in your ears as long and as deep as you want. That's your problem. It doesn't have to be mine, or others who want to delve deeper and find out the truth.

So, if anything, a more accurate description is that October 7th was a boiling point where Palestine retaliated for decades of oppressive killings.

But the reality is that neither is the right framing. The October 7th attacks on innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. The following invasion and widespread murder of innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable.

A ceasefire and peace deals must be imposed to keep the situation under control. All those who have caused the death of civilians, both in Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership, should face international justice, and new leaders should be installed that are committed to a lasting peace process.

I wasn’t. I was describing Gaza 2023- under a regime that can guarantee nothing like October 7 can ever happen again as indefinite subjugation.

You seem to view Hamas as just an extreme pro-Palestinian faction that's gone too far, but actually they're a terrorism group in every sense of the word, not tomorrow's leaders. (See video of Hamas throwing Fatah members off a rooftop one by one to their deaths, as one of numerous examples, besides that USA, EU, UK, Canada ... all class it was a terrorist organisation)

Hamas agrees to 1967 borders, fwiw: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-said-set-to-recognize-19...

> indisputable moral highground

No side in this conflict has that. When they reach peace is when both sides would have found that elusive highground.

> clearly full of darkness

Yes, they are. They've been abandoned [1]. Note though, Hamas is not designated as a terror organization by most of the global south; and al-Qassam, its militant wing, doesn't take orders from Hamas.

[1] In fact, other studies show that Palestinians feel profoundly, existentially, alone: https://archive.is/rLq02

Well, Gaza's MOH put out the 17k number, without breaking it down into militants vs civilians. How many militants do you think have actually been killed? If you are assuming that the IDF is targeting civilians, I guess it makes sense, but if you start from the assumption that they are trying to kill militants, then several thousand militants killed is reasonable.

> I don't consider the IDF a "good source" at all, like all government organizations they lie constantly although I suspect they lie more than most :P

So this is an ideological point, but worth going into. I don't think anyone should implicitly trust any source. But the IDF is part of a democracy - they have checks and balances in the form of government oversight, more importantly Israel has a free press that can check up on claims. Not to mention, hundreds of thousands of Israelis serve in the army and, Israel being a democracy, can speak up and report any abuses that happen or lies that get told.

Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.

I want to contrast this with other sources of numbers - e.g. Hamas can lie with impunity, because no one is checking up on them and they can (and do) execute people for saying the wrong thing. We know they've lied about numbers, e.g. the hospital bombing that they claimed was an Israeli attack that killed 500 people, only everyone now agrees that it wasn't Israel, and didn't kill so many people.

(Though also worth stressing that the total figures given by Gaza MOH are more or less in line with what the IDF is saying, except for not breaking it down by civilian vs. militant.)

> This is why I don't see how Israel will actually succeed in destroying Hamas

Maybe. You could definitely be right. Though there are outcomes here that don't depend on total destruction of Hamas. E.g. Hamas surrendering.

I feel like people forget what winning a war actually looks like. Most wars in history were actually won, when one side did so much damage to the other side that they realized it wasn't worth continuing to fight, and surrendered.

Most of the wars that e.g. the US has engaged in were just not that important to US's security, in the long run - so they had no real need to win. So most wars didn't really end, they "fizzled out".

This war is different. Israel looks at it as a matter of survival. That's a very different dynamic.

> Their means are limited. They could maybe get creative and fly some drones over the border and drop some grenades or something, but I don't see the potential for a mass casualty event like happened in October 7, if Israel is actually watching its border properly and not ignoring obvious warnings of impending attack as has been frequently reported regarding Oct 7.

Do you think the army can be on high alert for five years? Ten? Defend against possible other creative paths that we have no idea about? If I were Hamas I could think of dozens of other things to try at this point.

Also, it's not like Israel was purposefully ignoring obvious threats, this is an "in hindsight" perspective. There's a cost to addressing each potential threat, both monetarily, but also in lives lost. And Israel (rightly) doesn't have any confidence that 4 years from now, whatever actions it takes will be considered legitimate, even if there is evidence it's a new Hamas plot.

> This is just not a concern. The money US gives Israel every year vastly eclipses the amount they would need to spend on actually defending themselves properly.

I don't think that's true. The US's aid is about 10% of the IDF's budget, a figure I'm not sure takes into account the current war btw. But the economic cost of e.g. having 50k more people serving in the army is also the opportunity cost of them not working in industry in this time, etc.

The Palestinians who stayed in Israel became Israeli citizens, and have all the same rights as other Israelis. The Palestinians who fled Israel (by choice or force), did not become citizens. They were refugees for 20 years before Israel had control over them (and in that time were not granted citizenship in any other neighboring country, nor were they given the option to create their own state by the then-occupiers of that land).

The situation in the West Bank is indeed complicated, but the agreed-upon-by-all-sides solution is that it will eventually become a separate state (the two state solution). So it doesn't make much sense to wonder why they don't get voting rights in Israel - they are not citizens, and the agreed-upon path is for them to have their own state, not become citizens.

In Gaza the situation is much simpler - Israel doesn't occupy it anymore (or didn't before October 7th, no idea what will happen now).

You throw in the word blockade as if that's the same thing as Israeli control over Gaza, but it's not. The blockade was a legitimate response to Hamas carrying out attacks on Israel. Sovereign nations likewise sanction and/or blockade other countries for these kinds of attacks.

Does the US have control over Iran because of the sanctions it imposes? Is Iran not free?

> So the different forms of IDs, different license plates, court systems, etc. are all so the occupying force know to treat them with extra super equality? I’m surprised they don’t have separate water fountains and restrooms.

You are mixing up two completely different groups. One is the Israeli arab citizens, which is what the parent comment was referring to, and to which none of what you wrote applies. They are by law equal to any other Israeli, don't have separate court systems IDs or license plates.

You are probably conflating them with West Bank Palestinians, that don't have Israeli citizenship, and are under military control.

> The true resolution is for Israelis to give up on the idea of pushing Palestinians out of Israel and ceasing the apartheid, which in turn will give Palestinians hope and a fair shot at life, that will then cause Hamas to naturally dissolve since it will no longer serve any purpose. Israel killed Israelis in Gaza bombings since October 7th too.

Israel isn't trying to push Palestinians out of Israel. The ambition that leaders on both sides agree on is that the Palestinians will have their own state. Israel certainly hasn't done anything to advance that peaceful solution in the last 15 years, but it's not trying to push Palestinians anywhere, and before that there was a peace process in which Israel multiple times gave Palestinians offers that were rejected (and walked away from with no alternatives proposed, in some cases).

> I just think that if you put any group of people in an open air prison for long enough, you’re bound to get some… push back. There’s a Chris Rock line that nails the sentiment…“I don’t agree, but I understand.”

That's a great quote!

That said, you like many people call Gaza an open-air prison. What do you mean by that? It's evocative imagery for sure, but in what sense is it true?

Israel left Gaza, removed its settlers, and let them rule themselves, exactly as you propose. This didn't cause Hamas to dissolve - Gazans elected Hamas which then carried out many attacks over the last 15 years.

What now?

> To get an idea of where my perspective comes from in this whole conversation, one thing I strongly believe is that those in power hold the majority of responsibility. I know there are a lot of complicated layers to this discussion but I always come back to that.

I agree with this to some extent, and Israel certainly has a moral failing here in not helping advance peace in the last 15 years. As the stronger party I think it has a moral obligation to keep trying and not give up.

That said, I think it really is true that the fundamental reason there is no peace is that the Palestinians haven't given up on getting rid of all the Jews from Israel and getting all their land back, and thus keep choosing violence against Israel instead of accepting peaceful solutions. This whole mess could've ended many times by the Palestinians simply compromising on any of numerous occasions, which is the only way things ever change.

Both sides have some merit to their claims on the land, and no side is realistically going away - the only peaceful way out of this is if both sides compromise. Israel has shown itself willing to do so multiple times.

How’s that working out for the Palestinians in the West Bank?

“I am the only one who will prevent a Palestinian state in Gaza and [the West Bank] after the war” - Netanyahu

If the people of the only democracy in the middle east didn't believe this, they'd not have elected Likud to power for 2 decades and counting.

  The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)

  a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

  b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Perhaps some sort of program for Palestinians could be put into place to give them a similar right of return?

By who? Your phrasing suggests it was a part of Hamas' terrorism campaign.

Central to the conflict is the Israeli refusal to accept responsibility for the current state of affairs, or to recognize any conception of proportionality. "We f*cked up, and we have not treated Palestinian life as equal to Israeli life," would go a long way towards reconciliation, but Israel will never admit wrongdoing even in the face of actually having committed wrongdoing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/27/midd...

If facts, from where have you acquired the knowledge?

If opinion, have you any interest in the facts?

Reminder: THOUSANDS have died already, and many more will presumably due in the future. I appreciate that you prefer enjoying a psychologically comforting forum experience, but have you no concern for the experience of others on this planet?

If you insist on highly controversial topics, you should at least provide ways for users to block other HN users and all of their submissions in a symmetric way (if X blocks Y, X and Y cannot see each others posts). To give you a sense of perspective, I discussed the current Israel/Palestine situation on Reddit, and had to (i) mute more than a dozen subreddits, (ii) block about a hundred users, and (iii) report half a dozen users. I received private messages by people I haven't even discussed with that literally threatened my family with rape and death. Of course, these accounts were removed, but the danger of leaking one's real identity and corresponding real-world consequences are still high on pseudonymous sites. Not everybody on HN is a tech billionaire who can afford private bodyguards.

For many people, me included, it is not a good solution either to just have an ability to hide a thread without voicing any opposition to the partly horrendous discussions in it. Although I want to leave Academia (and probably will), I'm currently working as a philosopher on moral decision-making and related topics in meta-ethics, and that means that I feel obliged to sometimes participate in such threads, if they exist. But my take is that, if possible, they should be avoided. There is no lack of social media where people can discuss politics and ongoing wars.

https://twitter.com/smashah/status/1721992084167725078

(i forgot to add) + complete ban on MIC + Economic system completely realigned for joint and global humanitarianism (tikkun olam)